I view it the way I view science accuracy in TV and movies: if it gets in the way of the narrative, drama, or character development, then forget it. Otherwise, there's no reason not to, it'll make the product better as a result, and can even serve as a source of inspiration!
Following on that logic can lead to really bad excuses, especially since a lot of writers don't even bother to consider the logical implications of the different elements of their story before adding something new. They will literally make everything up. I know a lot of people don't think it's a big deal, and that since it's a so called "creative process", writers can do what the hell they want, but I disagree. I see no logical reason to not do it. In fact, there are no differences between writing a character and describing the physics involved in a scene because in each case, you measure the work with reality. What writers are good at usually is making you forget about what is not the drama, but it is just a way of hiding the dumpster by flashing bright lights at you.
Now, about the video, I mostly agree with the guy, although he is wrong on several counts about tanks in WWII and what form tank games should adopt.
First, some people like this war because it was the only one where tanks where actually the main firepower on land. You could not win a war without them. Before WWII, you could. After WWII, you could. But during that period, you needed big guns mounted on impenetrable steel. That makes this war very unique in the way tanks worked and were developped. There are no comparable historical period in that sense. So, no : No Cybertron tank games. Sorry dude.
Another thing is the tanks paint jobs. There were no standard for paint jobs at the time. The paint job was left to the discretion of the crew. There were suggestions I imagine, because camouflage was pretty much unique to each nations (and still is weirdly enough), but the crew was pretty much trusted to takie care of it. The result was that the emblems varied a lot and the nation was not always signaled in the same way. Not every german tank crew would choose to paint a swastika on their ride. In fact, knowing what I know about the Heer, I would guess that most crew would deliberately avoid this symbol, and I personnaly never saw a historical photograph of a german tank with a swastika on it. I don't know if it is because SS tanks are often left out ... who knows. Still, it's not historically inaccurate to represent a WWII tank with no swastika on the side. The luftwaffe might have had a different global stance about that ...
And this leads me to another point to counterbalance my critique : the comment of Wargaming on their stance on historical accuracy. I think he is correct to call them out on that. No because of the emblems ... Well, I would say that there might be some wiggle room, but anyway there was another item that prove their dishonesty. In the past they implemented a new map called Belogorsk 19. It was called after a goulag built near the town of Belogorsk. Well there were people who felt "offended" by the fact that they would do that. And they back down. They renamed the map Severogorsk. They made a similar statement about historical accuracy after they renamed the map, which sounded quite ridiculous frankly ... So, I guess anyone can imagine what would happen if Auschwitz or Dachau was implemented in any WWII game ...
