Topic: Current WWII Shooters Are Unethical

[GoldenPhoenix]

Quote
Originally posted by: Shecky
I hope you realize that you are in essence mocking a moderator...

Am I supposed to be scared?

[Shift Key]

Quote
What gives these people the right to write these texts?

History is written by the victor.
Not sure who that quote is attributed to but it goes a long way to explain why WWII has a lot of text regarding the Allied events when compared to the Axis events. Sure, we know bits and pieces about the rise of Nazism and Fascism and accounts from concentration camps, but in terms of military events and operations we do not have the same level of detail. This is possibly due to, when Berlin fell, the remaining soldiers destroyed texts relevant to the operations of the Axis in Europe in order to avoid future repercussions (war crimes, etc).

Quote
The ideologies that the former member of the Soviet Union who still believes that Communism is the direction this world should take would be somewhat disconcerting to an American.. Or even an Australian, such as me.

You're scared of an ideology or the people who believe in the ideology? Don't confuse the two, because an ideology is harmless until someone believes in it.

Pro Tip #1: communism is the ideology. Communism represents the organisation based on the ideology of communism. There's a huge difference in capitalisation.


The Communist Party - where its always a party!

Pro Tip #2: Communism isn't something that is lurking in the shadows these days. You can spot the Communist governments based on current affairs, such as China, North Korea, Cuba and a couple of other nations. There may be Communist organisations in most countries (yes, there is in Australia) but while these are in the minority then you have little to be afraid of.

Quote
Our western ideology may suggest, that it is indeed ethical to kill Nazis. That is what we did. And that is what they did back. How deep would you like to go.. did our bodies disappear? No... but, why would that matter...

What Jonny is asking is whether games have an obligation to impart more information about war in order to give the player a better perspective on the historical events. I'm not sure how "ethics" got in there because ethics are subjective, but I do see merit in video games about war containing more relevat information about the events (there are a number of possible methods of doing this rather than a straight narrative).

But where do you draw the line? Turning a game into a history lesson is not the way to boost sales. And if game developers were interested in being ethical in terms of respect for historical events, then you wouldn't see war video games being pumped out at such a constant rate. Simple as that.

Quote
After ALL this crap I've spun, what I'm trying to say is - yes, I may pretty much agree that 1st person shooters are politically incorrect and unethical. But unfortunately, perhaps our past and ideologies have forged an unethical society.

Wait, all first person shooters? Lets focus on the games that cover historical events. Leave the futuristic shooters to future generations to abhor.

Quote
Take for example the Spartan War with the 300 Spartans that fought to the bitter end. Shouldn't their war with the Persians be given the same respect as WWII? Both were fought around sacrificing themselves to protect their homeland. Yeah there isn't a clear cut historical account, but hardly anyone doubts that the accounts of their sacrifice was legitimate and was also brutal.

What is different is that the accounts of the Spartan War have been passed through many more generations than the WWII stories. So while the account of the 300 Spartans is almost mythical today (save for a couple of movies and a monument), the accounts from World War II are more current and more detailed. So perhaps the problem isn't respect but making use of the information available in order to illustrate the story. The accounts of the 300 Spartans requires much more creative license in order to fill the "gaps of knowledge" when compared to the D-Day landings.

Anyway, I started talking politics so I'm starting to smell the end of this thread. It was fun.

[GoldenPhoenix]

Quote
Originally posted by: Shift Key

What is different is that the accounts of the Spartan War have been passed through many more generations than the WWII stories. So while the account of the 300 Spartans is almost mythical today (save for a couple of movies and a monument), the accounts from World War II are more current and more detailed. So perhaps the problem isn't respect but making use of the information available in order to illustrate the story. The accounts of the 300 Spartans requires much more creative license in order to fill the "gaps of knowledge" when compared to the D-Day landings.

Anyway, I started talking politics so I'm starting to smell the end of this thread. It was fun.

But this thread is about showing respect for the sacrifice and brutality of war, so I would think anything depicting war in a less than realistic light would be disrespect. Regardless of how much of the Spartan War was myth, there still was a war and sacrifice was made, so anything that would illustrate that in a less than "real" light would be showing disrespect and "unethical". My point is that it turns into a slippery slope for supporters of Johnny's opinion, when it comes to portrayal of realism.

[Chozo Ghost]

Quote
Originally posted by: ShyGuy
Like WWII and Pirates, human society tends to mainstream bad things overtime to make them more acceptable. Take the word Pimp for example. In just a few years we went from "Selling whores for money" to "Pimp my Ride!"

I'm waiting for "Child-Molester my Ride" by the year 2025.

Haha! I'm surprised Rockstar hasn't made a child molesting game yet.

[Chozo Ghost]

Quote
Originally posted by: Jonnyboy117

Quote
Originally posted by: Chozo Ghost

Anyways, that's getting a bit off track. I suppose what it boils down to is anyone could be offended by anything. It makes no sense to resort to censorship. You just can't please everyone. Just let them know with a warning on the case and let them make their own decisions....

I have never once proposed censorship of any game.  I just think the developers and publishers of these game should do a better job of representing the events.  I might actually be interested in playing a WWII game if they made it realistic and emotionally complex.  I'd be scared to play it, but I would have to try it anyway.  Just like Letters from Iwo Jima, which I watched last week.  It sat in the Netflix envelope for a few days, because I kept finding other things I would rather do than watch a depressing war movie.  But when I finally watched it, I found the time to be extremely well spent.

Yeah, I get what you're saying. I actually seen that movie myself and it was very touching.

I suppose war games should look at deaths as more of a tragedy than they do. I mean, not in a cruel sadistic way that sickos could get off on, but you know... maybe you should get more points and stuff by minimizing casualties and trying to get the enemy to surrender rather than finishing him off. Maybe you should actually lose points when you kill, and so the point is just to stay alive and complete your objectives. Oh, and if you die, that's it.

[Case]

Quote
Originally posted by: Shift Key

Quote
What gives these people the right to write these texts?

History is written by the victor.
Not sure who that quote is attributed to but it goes a long way to explain why WWII has a lot of text regarding the Allied events when compared to the Axis events. Sure, we know bits and pieces about the rise of Nazism and Fascism and accounts from concentration camps, but in terms of military events and operations we do not have the same level of detail. This is possibly due to, when Berlin fell, the remaining soldiers destroyed texts relevant to the operations of the Axis in Europe in order to avoid future repercussions (war crimes, etc).

Quote
The ideologies that the former member of the Soviet Union who still believes that Communism is the direction this world should take would be somewhat disconcerting to an American.. Or even an Australian, such as me.

You're scared of an ideology or the people who believe in the ideology? Don't confuse the two, because an ideology is harmless until someone believes in it.

Pro Tip #1: communism is the ideology. Communism represents the organisation based on the ideology of communism. There's a huge difference in capitalisation.


The Communist Party - where its always a party!

Pro Tip #2: Communism isn't something that is lurking in the shadows these days. You can spot the Communist governments based on current affairs, such as China, North Korea, Cuba and a couple of other nations. There may be Communist organisations in most countries (yes, there is in Australia) but while these are in the minority then you have little to be afraid of.

Quote
Our western ideology may suggest, that it is indeed ethical to kill Nazis. That is what we did. And that is what they did back. How deep would you like to go.. did our bodies disappear? No... but, why would that matter...

What Jonny is asking is whether games have an obligation to impart more information about war in order to give the player a better perspective on the historical events. I'm not sure how "ethics" got in there because ethics are subjective, but I do see merit in video games about war containing more relevat information about the events (there are a number of possible methods of doing this rather than a straight narrative).

But where do you draw the line? Turning a game into a history lesson is not the way to boost sales. And if game developers were interested in being ethical in terms of respect for historical events, then you wouldn't see war video games being pumped out at such a constant rate. Simple as that.

Quote
After ALL this crap I've spun, what I'm trying to say is - yes, I may pretty much agree that 1st person shooters are politically incorrect and unethical. But unfortunately, perhaps our past and ideologies have forged an unethical society.

Wait, all first person shooters? Lets focus on the games that cover historical events. Leave the futuristic shooters to future generations to abhor.

Quote
Take for example the Spartan War with the 300 Spartans that fought to the bitter end. Shouldn't their war with the Persians be given the same respect as WWII? Both were fought around sacrificing themselves to protect their homeland. Yeah there isn't a clear cut historical account, but hardly anyone doubts that the accounts of their sacrifice was legitimate and was also brutal.

What is different is that the accounts of the Spartan War have been passed through many more generations than the WWII stories. So while the account of the 300 Spartans is almost mythical today (save for a couple of movies and a monument), the accounts from World War II are more current and more detailed. So perhaps the problem isn't respect but making use of the information available in order to illustrate the story. The accounts of the 300 Spartans requires much more creative license in order to fill the "gaps of knowledge" when compared to the D-Day landings.

Anyway, I started talking politics so I'm starting to smell the end of this thread. It was fun.

History is written by the victor, huh?

The texts are destroyed.. ok.. well thats my point.
My point was - that it would be safe to assume many texts from that era are gone.
So we research. But "we" are westerners.
And "we" westerners write these texts.
I agree somewhat. You are right that the victor - ie, westerners would have gathered up numbers for casualties and what-have-you.. but,

I answered my own question.
Being the victor does not give you the right to information or to write it.
People write all the time.
Letters from Iwo Jima is a prime example.

Western ideology is afraid of an alternative ideology. ie - Communism.
Why?
Because it counters eachother.
Simple.

It does not matter what or who beleives in it.

Little to be afraid of for they are the minority?
Well, in the era of the Cold War the ideological threat was very, very real.

Do I myself fear Communism and alternative ideologies?
No.. if I did I would freak out in Culture, Identities and Texts 101.
It is my job to tear these ideologies appart and understand them, so lookout

I said that 1st person shooters are politically incorrect and un-ethical.
That is not a typo.
Going around, killing people for fun in a video game is now socially accepted.
Is it good or bad? Well, what do you beleive? I honestly don't care and the terms good and bad are funny. ^___^


I would definately agree that we have probably gone far away from simply asking "Should war games be more realistic?"
I just wanted to go deeper is all.... ^___^


If you guys would like to look at my assignment when it is done, which is about the Cold War and Ideology, let me know.
I'm sure I can be of enlightenment.  

[ShyGuy]

Quote
If you guys would like to look at my assignment when it is done, which is about the Cold War and Ideology, let me know.
I'm sure I can be of enlightenment.

Hahaha, throw out your copies of Plato's The Republic people, we have a new teacher descended from the mount! This new staff member is a keeper

But seriously, even though I disagree with Jonny's "ethics" argument here, It is well intentioned. Respect our elders and our past, and do not trivialize and simplify our history for the sake of mindless entertainment. I think few would disagree with those thoughts.
 

[LuigiHann]

I didn't read most of this thread, so I apologize if I'm retreading old ground.

But the first post makes an interesting point that I think extends beyond WWII games: "Toned-down violence" can be even more dangerous than "graphic violence," in some ways. Graphic violence at least leaves an impression of the consequences, whereas some "less graphic" violence makes it seem like people just disappear when they get shot.

I don't agree that either is likely to make kids into killers, I just think it's odd.  

[Kairon]

Quote
Originally posted by: ShyGuy

Quote
If you guys would like to look at my assignment when it is done, which is about the Cold War and Ideology, let me know.
I'm sure I can be of enlightenment.

Hahaha, throw out your copies of Plato's The Republic people, we have a new teacher descended from the mount! This new staff member is a keeper

Agreed. I would like to read this treatise of yours Case, if I may!

[UERD]

Quote
Graphic violence at least leaves an impression of the consequences, whereas some "less graphic" violence makes it seem like people just disappear when they get shot.

But if you go from 'Saving Private Ryan' graphic to 'Starship Troopers: The Movie' graphic, you lose the 'war is bad' aspect and people begin complaining about gratuitous violence. After all, we can probably have a complete debate over whether the violence of the Normandy landing in a WWII film is morally or qualitatively different from the depiction of a giant alien bug ripping apart a human soldier.

Quote
I said that 1st person shooters are politically incorrect and un-ethical.
That is not a typo.
Going around, killing people for fun in a video game is now socially accepted.
Is it good or bad? Well, what do you beleive? I honestly don't care

If you think they are un-ethical, wouldn't that mean you care?

[Case]

Quote
Originally posted by: UERD

Quote
Graphic violence at least leaves an impression of the consequences, whereas some "less graphic" violence makes it seem like people just disappear when they get shot.

But if you go from 'Saving Private Ryan' graphic to 'Starship Troopers: The Movie' graphic, you lose the 'war is bad' aspect and people begin complaining about gratuitous violence. After all, we can probably have a complete debate over whether the violence of the Normandy landing in a WWII film is morally or qualitatively different from the depiction of a giant alien bug ripping apart a human soldier.

Quote
I said that 1st person shooters are politically incorrect and un-ethical.
That is not a typo.
Going around, killing people for fun in a video game is now socially accepted.
Is it good or bad? Well, what do you beleive? I honestly don't care

If you think they are un-ethical, wouldn't that mean you care?

Ethics (arguably) is an idea developed and relative to our ideology, that’s why I mentioned it and Jonny will probably hate me for it because he didn't ask anything about ideology.. ^__^;;

Once more, it is my "job" to understand and even question our ideologies (by comparing them, ie. Communism to Western ideology)
as well as others.. ^__^
I would consider 1st person shooter games to be un-ethical and "politically incorrect" - I'm an extremely politically incorrect person.
I LOVE games, such as 007 Golden Eye and even though it's a 3rd person shooter - RE4
The sentence before "I honestly don't care" is "Well, what do you believe?" ^__^
what I was trying to say was I'd like to know what you guys all think, because I've rambled all too much!

And lol @ teacher
I've only started this subject for the last month and a half hah
It's basically the sole reason I haven't been doing any reviews or posting much news.. study's a killer.. >__<

[Infernal Monkey]

Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane

It would be neat to see a war videogame based on historical events where the game doesn't try to entertain you by providing action and thrills but rather through fear.  When I see a good war movie I'm scared for the characters I've been introduced to.  I don't want those people to die and I know some of them will.  Then it isn't about killing the other team.  It's about surviving.  Make a war game where the goal is to live through the war.  We know who won what battles in historical wars anyway.  Make a game where the battle will end as it did no matter what and you the player just have to survive and keep your friends alive.  That would be more like real war and would probably be entertaining as well, but in a way like a good war movie is.  No lives.  Every battle in World War II is simulated and you're just a soldier.  You pick at what point in the war you join and which allied country you serve and then you just see how long you survive.  Die from the first bullet and it's game over and you can start again as a different recruit and pick what time period you sign up.

I'm going to bring up Brothers in Arms again. Nobody's going to play it, but still.

Your 'main character' dies at one point, not as in 'oh no' and being able to continue from a save point, but he actually dies and you take over as a completely new soldier.

I'd like to see the next BiA game expand upon the CPU squad you control though. If you mess up and lead them to their death, you don't really feel anything as they're just very generic characters with no personality. That and the same models respawn in the next mission like magic.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

BiA gives me hope, cuz I like squad direction.  I'm just unsure how well it plays (AI competency, damage models)

[Svevan]

I read this thread and had a couple thoughts to chew on (nothing complex yet):

Is art capable of recreating history? I argue no. I believe Saving Private Ryan (a film I used to love, and still respect on certain levels) is thoroughly dishonest, as much as Schindler's List and The Grey Zone are dishonest about the Holocaust: all three of these films (and many many more) pretend that we can understand history, that a film can impart the emotion or experience of being on the battlefield or living in a concentration camp. These films trivialize atrocity, making it compact and digestible. Spielberg is great at adding a happy cathartic ending that allows us to walk out of the theater no worse for the wear, but in Schindler's List he does something remarkable: he reminds us that we're watching a movie during the final color scene of the real Schindler Jews. All those emotions we suffered, all those false moments that attempted to humanize real people, none of them accomplished anything compared to that final scene. It disgraced the last three hours by disqualifying them. (And just to clarify, even that final scene does nothing for us other than inform our historical viewpoint - without the first three hours to guide it, the isolation of the last scene would probably not be art at all.)

Does this mean we shouldn't make movies about history? No, just that historical films too often pretend to communicate fact, and "realism" is valued over art. When Spielberg shows us Saving Private Ryan, he's showing us a fictional story with a lot of warts. The best parts of the movie are the ones of the soldiers communicating, feeling, the scenes of battlefield politics, and the tough allegory of American involvement in WWII that is communicated by the characters of Upham, Mellish, and the Nazi they free. The scenes that attempt to "realistically" portray war are fake, and more exciting than infuriating. Francois Truffaut lamented that there is no such thing as an anti-war film because movies make war too spectacular, too exciting. His observation also applies to supposedly realistic pro-war films, especially those that glamorize or emotionalize atrocity, fooling us into believing that we understand what it was like for them.

I want to apply this same thought to games. Realism in games is as worthless as realism in movies (not just war movies or games). Realism as a style is an attempt to hide behind a "not-style" or "nostyle." Those who reject style usually believe art is a statement or a message, that the "experience" of art is secondary to the "learning." I doubt many people here have this problem, since we play games for experience and not messages, but some of the statements in the thread seem to indicate that games need to aspire to higher social consciousness and emotional quantity (or diversity). I disagree with these thoughts. Playing a game is playing a game, and the emotional aftershock of playing a game usually brings me back to those beautiful moments that I experienced. Art is moral (and morality is not subjective, since no one else wants to say it) inherently; what is good in art is good ethically. What is good in a game is not some idea at the end that I can agree with or disagree (see Metal Gear Solid for excessive moralizing of an already morality-packed game, and I say that even if the story was removed) but the act of playing it, its quality and power. This isn't always beauty; sometimes its ugliness. See the great painter Francis Bacon for some really ugly shlt that is beyond the simple definitions of "good art/bad art."

Video games don't have to play catch up with movies or paintings - they are art (and they are emotional) through their combination of music, plot, location, images, and player interaction. This can be done in a historical story. Calling for more realism in video games is like calling for more realism in movies: it presupposes that the goal of art is to form conclusions instead of ask questions. If we do make a game about World War II that actually addresses it, it had better not be fun. Realism is the pits. (I am not against the creation of this game, because I do not believe every game must be "fun.")

As for games that use World War II with less realism than is deemed ethical or responsible, I say that they must have some other goal or some other element keeping them alive other than simple shooting mechanics. That does seem irresponsible and disrespectful, not to the people who've died in war, but to the audience. They just want their shooter fix, and the World War II aura adds only a backdrop for the killing. Those who play them are wiser if they play them as shooters and not as history lessons.  

Also:

Quote
Originally posted by: Chiller
Of course, morals and ethics are purely subjective, as they are merely constructs of the human psyche.  As such, I don't acknowledge them, other than for the sake of functioning in a society of others who do.

Why isn't blatant atheism like this considered religious, thereby falling under the same jurisdiction as anti-atheistic thoughts? Perhaps, said the jackass who wanted to open a can of worms, religion and politics and games and cookies and economics and trees and every single other thing are all part of the same discussion, and disallowing two (major) subjects in the lifelong debate stifles any serious discussion on our superficial board? Maybe the powers that be (of which I guess I am one) want to keep things superficial and civil. Either way, the atheists are getting away with a ton of shlt.  

[Kairon]

Great insights Svevan!

... only, now I feel ashamed of myself for some unknown reason...

[GoldenPhoenix]

Yikes, some harsh words from Evan. Really I can't find much to disagree with from my brief perusal of his post (I'll read it deeper later on when I'm awake), though I do think WWII games can be "good" if they inspire people to delve deeper in to history, actually I would say that for more than WWII games but anything based on important events in our history. Now I would not go as far to say that WWII games inspired me, but they did cause me to read the "real" history behind things.  Hate to say it, but I think Evan pwned all of us!

[ShyGuy]

Glad to see Evan chiming in. He is correct in his statements although he misses parts of the debate. Can't really blame him as he pointed out in the end that the can worms is deep and wide.

[UERD]

I can disagree neither with what Evan said nor the underlying views that impelled him to make those comments. And anyone who opens a topic about 'ethics' is practically begging for trouble people to share or involve their religious or ideological beliefs.

[jakeOSX]

Not sure if I am mis-interpreting what Evan said, but disclaimers aside:

I disagree with the 'it is just art' argument. Can art recreate war? Literally, figuratively, visually, audibly, emotionally, yes. Paintings, books, recreations by actors, movies, even the stories themselves from actual veterans (which is art) all accomplish this. Do they accomplish it completely? I suppose that would depend on the person. Some people can read a book and be there. Others just see words on a page, but if you put them in front of a painting their world can be changed. Art is subjective. Art is art to the artist AND to the observer.

On a side note, I agree a lot about Saving Private Ryan.

Realism is a style of art, just like surrealism, cubism, Warhol-ism. Art can be a statement or message, Art for art sake is kinda rare. Art is created for something: to tell a story, to show a scene, to create an atmosphere. Style is linked to the art and how it presents itself to you. Would resident evil work as well ala wind waker art direction? (i'd like to find out...) Does Killer 7's style make it any less brutal?

Take photography. Most photography IS realism. It is a capture, an archive, of a second. A physical, visual representation of what was there. But it is also art. The art is in presentation, angle, in frame and developing. It is real and art.

But this isn't about photography, it is about video games. "It is just a game..." Death of 'yourself' (your character) or other NPC's doesn't have much impact. A reboot of a level, a 'medpack' a resurrection spell and you are moving on, saving the world again. In a way, older games were truer to reality. Lacking the ability to save makes the consequences for dying a bit higher (especially several hours into a game).

America's Army (IMHO) is a good example of realism well applied in a game. Between the damage meter (no heal, maybe two shots before death) to the aiming (an un tripoded sniper rifle is very, very hard to shoot) it kept things realistic, and kept me involved with the game. The un-realism? If I died, I just had to wait ten minutes or so for the match to be over.

But the question was: is this ethical? Moral? Gentlemen and Ladies, children have been playing war games for thousands of years. Adults haven been writing novels, painting, inventing and playing games based on wars for almost as long. This is not new ground, this is not Something Different. We did not dishonor the dead when we lead their imagined legions into battle across the back yard. I do not believe we dishonor them by playing through a level on a video game.

As for the emotion, the realism of the even, that is in the hands of the artist as much as the observer. Evan sounds like he would not be moved no matter how imersive the experience. There is nothing wrong with this. Me? I'm not sure. I have played several WWII games. I have seen Normandy, Pearl Harbor, Stalingrad. I have been on the fields of France and in the streets of Berlin. All from my living room. Is that the same as grabbing a rifle and charging a beach? No. But it has put me closer to understanding, appreciating what it may have been like.

History has been coming down to us through art since we started drawing on cave walls. Now our walls are a bit more sophisticated.  

[GoldenPhoenix]

Jake, haven't seen you post much but you make some great points.

[ShyGuy]

Awaken the sleeping giant BUMP.


Thought this interview Gabe did with his grandpa was peritnent http://www.penny-arcade.com/

Quote
Q. What do you think about gamers playing video games based on World War II?

A. I haven’t really paid enough attention to the games themselves to be able to tell you truthfully, but I would think, if it’s just people shooting one another, I don’t think it’s a proper thing for young people to do. I think it sets a bad example for them, because they get into the mood of doing that, and that begins their lifestyle. And that’s not the lifestyle you want.


Q. When groups of gamers are playing these games together it is common for some of them to play as the enemy. They might play as Germans defending the beach at Normandy for example. What's your opinion of that?

A. Well, it ties back in to what I already said. I don’t think it’s an appropriate game. I think they can make games that will interest kids, that don’t have to include war. We don’t need to be killing each other in games. There’s other ways of strategizing and using the kind of skills that make those games popular.


Q. Is there anything you would like to say to gamers who are fans of these sorts of games?


A. If [the games] are what I think they are, I think [the gamers that play them] should stop and take a look at what you’re actually doing. Try to reason through and ask what’s the advantage of what you’re doing. What kind of an education is that giving you?


Q. Do you think they would have a different opinion if they’d been through an actual war?

A. Yes. Definitely.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

Why is Svevan MIA?

[redgiemental]

In a counter to Jake's comments I would suggest that he only thinks that the games have made him closer to appriecating what war is actually like. Games as a whole are a wholly sanitized version of what war is actually like. They largely show little of the horror of war. The suffering and the fear are usually nowhere to be seen. Did you ever think of the soldiers as afraid they'd never see their families again while you were playing ? Did you contemplate the pain the soldiers felt when they were shot?

The two shot damage meter I feel could be a step in the right direction. More realistic guns I find irrelevant to be honest. No matter how realistic the method of shooting is if the consequences of it are not emotionally charged then does it really matter?

How would you feel if people all around were shooting at you in real-life? How do you feel in the game?

If you were to actually shoot someone and see the blood trickle out and watch the life drain from their eyes in real-life would you not feel emotionally effected?  Do you feel this way in the game when you are shooting and killing people in the game?

The argument that is being put forth here (if I understand correctly) is that these games while they have realistic settings and equipment and dates etc do very little to convey the actual horror of real war. The suffering. pain and fear that is caused to almost every one involved in it.

I do find making war fun and heroic a little in poor taste.

I hope you don't feel I am attacking you in any way Jake I'm attempting a counter to your arguments in a hopefully civil tone. I mean no offense.

I'd be very interested in Ian's idea of a war game though.  

EDIT: I didnt realise this was an old thread that had been bumped. I perhaps may have been less direct if I had realised.  

[Kairon]

That's okay redgiemental, bumping old threads is a time honored tradition at these forums!

I think it's a great insight that you have that increased realism in guns and graphics are meaningless without increased emotional realism for the game. If my heart isn't pounding, and I'm not actually scared and feeling like I'm scrambling from point to point, then paintball will be head and shoulders above anything that videogames can do.

It's weird, because I love the entertainment value of these things. I love World War II shooters, and hollywood movies, and History channel specials... but I have to completely acknowledge the possibility that these things aren't doing war justice at all, and are instead glorifying them and desensitizing them to the rest of us.

[Smash_Brother]

Quote
Originally posted by: Svevan Does this mean we shouldn't make movies about history? No, just that historical films too often pretend to communicate fact, and "realism" is valued over art. When Spielberg shows us Saving Private Ryan, he's showing us a fictional story with a lot of warts.

While it's never possible to recreate something like war via fiction, I know that Saving Private Ryan did one thing right which games could stand to learn from: it made watching the movie a painful experience. It literally wasn't entertainment so much as it was agony. Is there anyone who honestly watches SPR again and again? I watched it once and never wanted to watch it again.

A proper war game should be the same way: it should make the player dislike the game in the same fashion survival horrors do, making the playthrough feel more like a hardship which you'll be proud of saying you made it through than a game with a brief single player campaign filled with little story and transient characters which you feel no connection to, and when they die, you should actually care.

If I ever had the chance to make a war game, I'd aim for exactly this, not only because I think it would put people closer to the understanding of what it was like but because it would shame some of the other devs who churn these things out like sports sequels.

You may not be able to ever get people to fully "understand" war, but you can come damn close by getting them to come away with the impression that war is, if nothing else, terrible beyond imagination and should be avoided at all costs.