WWII doc to use in-game Brother in Arms footage
by James Ransom-Wiley 
{ Dec 2nd 2005 at 1:00PM }
On Sunday, December 18, the History Channel will premiere
Brother in Arms, a WWII documentary that will feature in-game footage from Ubisoft's video game series of the
same name. The Brother in
Arms games, developed by Gearbox, will be used to tell the story of the 101st Airborne, 502nd Parachute
Infantry's involvement in the Normandy Invasion. The History Channel is no stranger to using video games to enhance its
programs, having used the Rome: Total War engine to depict historical battles between the Greek and Roman
armies in 2004's Decisive Battles.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Grudge @ Dec 18th 2005 10:01PM
"To enhance it's programs". Hahaha. You mean "To reap the benefits of video game marketing, which is the hot advertising ticket this year". I think some veterans might see a polygonal representation of the things they fought and died for - not as a game, but as history teaching tool - to be a bit...less than optimal.
Oh, how optimistic you folks are.
Paranoised @ Dec 18th 2005 10:01PM
Why use expensive actors, props & effects when you can use cheap machinima to re-inact the battles.
All while getting free exposure from the gaming media?
Aikinai @ Dec 18th 2005 10:01PM
This is a great idea as long as it's done well. They have to show something when they don't have real footage, and this is better than the obviously low-budget reenactments they usually have to go with. I saw part of a documentary the other day where they had pilots describing historic dogfights. They had pretty good CG representations of the fights and it really added a lot to the show; it helps make the stories more real and not just "history". Not every show can afford custom CG though, so machinima is at least better than other low-budget options. The in-game models might still stand out a little too much though; when in-game graphics are even better, this will probably become very common.
Grudge @ Dec 18th 2005 10:01PM
Because the one thing that games fail to do as well as anything live is elicit enough emotion to match the horror and gritthat these men went through. If I were in a murder trial, and the 'picture' of the victim the jury saw was CG, the emotional reaction would not be anywhere near what it should be in such a situation.
I know I'm probably alone on this, but there's thousandsof hours worth of film, letters, photos, and everything else. This turns it into a vehicle for game marketing, not a vehicle for compassion and relation to what these people went through and sacrificed to fight and die in this war.
To me, it is disrespectful. But, I do understand why other might not think that way.
theblunderbuss @ Dec 18th 2005 10:01PM
I saw that Rome episode. I thought it was tastefully done and quite neat!
I wondered if that was the computer game.
LaughingTarget @ Dec 18th 2005 10:01PM
Agreed, the Decisive Battles show was very good using the RTW engine. There is no way they could have afforded to put together a full-scale reenactment. Even the US Legio groups can't fully field enough people to put on a real deal.
The problem with the old footage is they lack a lot of perspective. They are grainy and are mostly shot from poor vantage points to see the real action. There isn't much in the way of footage to show things like the bloody invasions of Omaha Beach or the extent of the battle in the Pacific, like at Midway. By using games, audiences can really see what was going on up close and in places that never were filmed.