Post by: NWR_pap64 on January 01, 2008, 01:52:47 PM
The whole thing is basically a political commentary on how the scarcity of oil will drive the whole world into a war over the last oil resource. The game even goes as far as to predict how the lack of oil will drive half of the world into poverty, violence and the alliance of enemy countries (During the narration they say the whole thing started in 2008, and the game is scheduled to be released in February 2008. Coincidence or cleverly placed shock factor? You decide...).
It was pretty heavy and grim as it was lifted right out of the headlines and CNN special reports and into a FPS. After I was done playing I got to thinking; "Should videogames be made around current social issues?"
Videogames have already toyed with various human philosophies, such as existentialism, the balance between right and wrong, the value of the human mind, death and the consequences of your decisions. But "Frontline" might be the first game I've ever played that takes a common social concern and makes a whole game around it (I've never played some of the Tom Clancy games nor any other military based game so I might be mistaken).
So my question to you is, should videogames be based around well known conflicts in hopes of delivering a message?
I say yes...and no. Yes because for years people have labeled videogames as being a dumb and childish entertainment medium which corrupts the minds of those that play them, so its great to see a developer tackle something as deep and current as the rising problems of the oil industry and making a game about it. God knows, the WWII shooters were getting old (and unethical for some).
On the other hand, I say no. We are all adults here. We are well aware that the world is a messed up one. People are dying, wars are raged over the stupidest things, children are starving, people are killing each other over meager stuff and politicians are lying to us and stealing what we have worked hard to earn. Worst of all, there's nothing we can do about it. True, we can create awareness and try to get people to stand up and do something, but in the end all that effort will be overshadowed somehow. Yeah, the world's a crappy place alright. So what do we do? We escape into videogames.
They are able to make us forget about the world's problems, even if only for a couple of hours. They can transport us into magical, unique and fun worlds where we can meet and interact with amazing characters. So, why should Al Gore invade Mario Galaxy and with every star I get remind me that pollution is causing global warning? Or why should Michael Moore appear during an MMORPG and start about how the Bush administration is lying to us about 9/11? Can you imagine "Sicko: The videogame?" Next thing you know, they will make games about fast food restaurants murder and mutilate animals for the sake of profit...Oh, right.
So I believe that there should be a balance. Developers have the right to develop whatever they desire. The industry is in dire need of creative and daring developers that can make videogames into more than just a time waster. Lord knows, we need to destroy that stereotype.
On the other hand, videogames are meant to be fun. They exist for the same reason movies are made and music is created everyday; they bring us hours of joy and even gives us a little bit of light into our existence. So not every has to featured the deepest political commentary ever or tackle issues that many of us consider taboo. Sometimes being fun is all you need to make a highly respected game. Just ask Miyamoto.
So once again, balance. "Frontline" is fine for now. But I'll be very upset if every game needs to remind me how OUR world and society is extremely messed up.
Your thoughts?
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on January 01, 2008, 02:01:42 PM
Post by: Crimm on January 01, 2008, 02:04:02 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on January 01, 2008, 02:07:04 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Crimm
I disagree with GP a bit. I don't care how political or balanced a game is. Games should be like movies, and movies have agendas all the time. They don't have to, and if they do they aren't balanced.
Heaven forbid trying to balance something.
Post by: Kairon on January 01, 2008, 02:28:43 PM
That said, it still doesn't make it any less unsettling when a game like Trauma Center starts talking about euthanasia.
Post by: NWR_pap64 on January 01, 2008, 02:47:53 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
The whole thing is dreadfully moot. Freedom of speech and all that. You can't stop game makers from injecting some sort of social or political lesson into their game stories aside from not buying their games, for better or worse.
That said, it still doesn't make it any less unsettling when a game like Trauma Center starts talking about euthanasia.
Its one thing to briefly mention it, the other is to build a whole game around it in hopes of catching attention.
We won't know for sure what were the developer's intention when making Frontline but to say that they are NOT saying something is being in denial.
Post by: ShyGuy on January 01, 2008, 02:52:20 PM
Post by: Crimm on January 01, 2008, 03:05:12 PM
Games: should be the same.
Post by: Kairon on January 01, 2008, 03:21:48 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: pap64Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
That said, it still doesn't make it any less unsettling when a game like Trauma Center starts talking about euthanasia.
Its one thing to briefly mention it, the other is to build a whole game around it in hopes of catching attention.
I agree. I'd much rather NOT have gotten ambushed by Trauma Center. I can understand entire games based around issues, that's fine. That's up front and I know what I'm getting into. But for a sociopolitico directive like that to jump out of my DS when I'm trying to relax... that ain't what I signed up for!
Quote
Originally posted by: pap64
We won't know for sure what were the developer's intention when making Frontline but to say that they are NOT saying something is being in denial.
Oh, I'm pretty sure that they're not going to deny it. It's war game. War and politics go hand in hand, even more so when your setting is "in the near future."
Actually, games have been making sociopolitical statements for ages. Civilization 1 for the PC, since it was a sim, forced you to make choices about types of government, foreign relations, and by virtue of the "wonders" and technologies you researched created a value system where Women's Suffrage was "good," as well as mechanized infantry. (Incidentally, I felt that the game punished you SEVERELY for being a democracy. I spent most of the game as a communism.) The War Craft games have featured a slowly emerging thread of racial mistrust, which finally came to the forefront in WarCraft III where orcs were kept in "internment camps" by the humans.
I guess the key is in how offensive the message's delivery is (how it's handled, whether it felt "fair"), as well as how accepted the content is. It's hard to find anyone who'll deny the "badness" of things like racism and genocide, so that's why these are "safe" political topics that most games can get away with. But put something timely, controversial, and as-of-yet unresolved in a game? Heaven forbid!
Post by: ShyGuy on January 01, 2008, 03:23:47 PM
In the same way, the strongest stories in video games could be balanced as well.
Post by: NWR_pap64 on January 01, 2008, 03:32:58 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: KaironQuote
Originally posted by: pap64Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
That said, it still doesn't make it any less unsettling when a game like Trauma Center starts talking about euthanasia.
Its one thing to briefly mention it, the other is to build a whole game around it in hopes of catching attention.
I agree. I'd much rather NOT have gotten ambushed by Trauma Center. I can understand entire games based around issues, that's fine. That's up front and I know what I'm getting into. But for a sociopolitico directive like that to jump out of my DS when I'm trying to relax... that ain't what I signed up for!Quote
Originally posted by: pap64
We won't know for sure what were the developer's intention when making Frontline but to say that they are NOT saying something is being in denial.
Oh, I'm pretty sure that they're not going to deny it. It's war game. War and politics go hand in hand, even more so when your setting is "in the near future."
Actually, games have been making sociopolitical statements for ages. Civilization 1 for the PC, since it was a sim, forced you to make choices about types of government, foreign relations, and by virtue of the "wonders" and technologies you researched created a value system where Women's Suffrage was "good," as well as mechanized infantry. (Incidentally, I felt that the game punished you SEVERELY for being a democracy. I spent most of the game as a communism.) The War Craft games have featured a slowly emerging thread of racial mistrust, which finally came to the forefront in WarCraft III where orcs were kept in "internment camps" by the humans.
I guess the key is in how offensive the message's delivery is (how it's handled, whether it felt "fair"), as well as how accepted the content is. It's hard to find anyone who'll deny the "badness" of things like racism and genocide, so that's why these are "safe" political topics that most games can get away with. But put something timely, controversial, and as-of-yet unresolved in a game? Heaven forbid!
It all depends on how its handled. Like its being said already games have dealt with this sort of thing before, and many of them were inspired by the developer's own experiences. For example, the plot of Final Fantasy VII was inspired by the death of Sakaguchi's mother and the delicate balance of life. The whole theme of FFVII is environmentalism, life, death and existence.
The reason the whole thing wasn't overwhelming is because it was handled in small chunks and it never felt forced onto the player. Same with the Metal Gear series. The recent games deal with the consequences of war, and at times it was VERY grim. But again, because it dealt with other topics and managed it nicely it never felt like Kojima was drilling it into our brains.
Just in case, I'm not saying that games shouldn't feature this type of stuff. Like I said, developers have the right to develop what they want. What I am saying is that when they try to shove it down your throat it stops being fun and becomes an overly preachy type of propaganda.
Post by: Kairon on January 01, 2008, 03:40:23 PM
Post by: NWR_pap64 on January 01, 2008, 03:50:26 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
The growing segment of "Serious Games," which try to use the medium of gaming for social awareness and education (ala how documentaries use film I guess) will probably actually not care about fun that much, only treating the game as a means to an educational sociopolitical end. I mean... they have a game where you manage the expenditures of a family in... where was it? Darfur? The game ends when they die of starvation. Sounds really fun right?
Once again, I'm not saying that every game should be made to provide dumb fun and that developers shouldn't shy away from ideas because they are afraid of what people might say. What I am simply saying is that there are times where I just want to enjoy a good game with great gameplay and a good story, not making me feel bad, scared or guilty about the trouble's of the world.
I don't want to ignore the problems the world is facing, but I don't want to hear about it all the time.
Was that game a mass release one or a website type flash game?
Post by: IceCold on January 01, 2008, 03:59:11 PM
I'd much rather go to other sources for this type of stuff.
Post by: Kairon on January 01, 2008, 04:00:01 PM
... I can't remember exactly but I think it was a flash game and it was associated with the UN or World Food Program or something like that.
Post by: bustin98 on January 01, 2008, 05:02:55 PM
Post by: ShyGuy on January 01, 2008, 06:37:36 PM
Post by: ReverendNoahWhateley on January 01, 2008, 07:42:34 PM
Post by: Kairon on January 01, 2008, 07:54:37 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: ReverendNoahWhateley
Personally, I don't want to be lectured to by a video game, but I could prevent that by simply not buying said game.
Apparently, millions of people love being lectured. Just look at the sales of MGS.
Post by: KDR_11k on January 01, 2008, 08:20:14 PM
Well, it's a popular scenario for having a war happen in fiction.
Commentaries of a sort or the other have been in art as long as art existed. How ham-fisted or convincing it was depended mostly on the ability of the artist(s). Propaganda is always a bad thing, no matter whether it's movies, games, paintings or books we're talking about. Of course obvious propaganda is not that bad since it's easy to defuse, the subtle kind is MUCH more dangerous.
The strength of a game is that you can make your point by letting the player find it out by himself rather than just preach about it. If you have an economic sim and you want to express that a certain economic model doesn't work you make using it cause failure (how much or little you have to change the rules of your game directly shows how valid your point is...) or at least suboptimal performance. For a blunt example, if you want to show that killing is bad you allow the player to kill but make it nigh impossible to get away with. This can be done in many ways which again can be subtle or ham-fisted (or of course anything in between). Games can show many things about cause and effect and alternative solutions.
What I believe is the totally wrong way is to write a story that has all evil come from action X you don't like (e.g. Square-Enix's constant preaching about technology = bad when it's mostly graphics power that sells their games). There's always a crapload of "we should return to our old values" stuff in storylines, especially the japanese kind (guess the aging story writers feel threatened by the more flexible youth, eh?). That is the absolute wrong way to do it, if you want to show the player that an act is bad let him choose to do it and show him the issues, don't make some quasi-Hitler figure that does what you don't like.
As for games with consequences, hatred and all that The Witcher (PC, RPG) supposedly has a lot of it.
Post by: Kairon on January 01, 2008, 08:50:30 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11kWhat I believe is the totally wrong way is to write a story that has all evil come from action X you don't like (e.g. Square-Enix's constant preaching about technology = bad when it's mostly graphics power that sells their games). There's always a crapload of "we should return to our old values" stuff in storylines, especially the japanese kind (guess the aging story writers feel threatened by the more flexible youth, eh?). That is the absolute wrong way to do it, if you want to show the player that an act is bad let him choose to do it and show him the issues, don't make some quasi-Hitler figure that does what you don't like.
Yes! Thank you!
Post by: Plugabugz on January 01, 2008, 10:58:09 PM
Metroid = Isolation
House = Everybody Lies
Stargate Atlantis = "The future is predetermined only by the character who shapes it"
Disaster: Day of Crisis = The consequences of the actions we've made? (complete guess here)
Games should have social messages - even nintendo ones have sub-meanings in it - but not political ones. Politics is one of those things that, when handled poorly, can either bore anyone to death, start a row or stinging criticism. Unless it's going to have a fresh approach to it, i'd rather avoid it as much as possble.
Post by: ShyGuy on January 02, 2008, 06:36:59 AM
Pokemon: Gotta catch em all
Pikmin: Exploit the indigenous people.
Post by: EasyCure on January 02, 2008, 07:30:14 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: ShyGuy
Zelda: Power Corrupts
also
Bravery/Rightousness(sp?) go unrewarded
sure Link would probably turn down any sort of reward because he's just that cool of a guy, but atleast they could OFFER him something.
even [Team] Star Fox accepted medals and a paycheck for defending the Lylat system in face of galactic anhilation
Post by: Ian Sane on January 02, 2008, 11:12:36 AM
I don't like preachy movies where they hit you over the head with a message. In a way all movies kind of do that. They usually have some sort of villian doing something bad. Usually it's something very universally frowned upon like murdering people so we don't really notice it. To me a film comes across as preachy when it takes a controversial subject and presents a viewpoint in a such a way that they act like everyone shares that viewpoint - ie: all the heroes in the film share it without any disagreement and only clearly defined villians offer an opposing viewpoint if the opposing viewpoint is shown at all. Preachy films have an agenda. They want to push a certain viewpoint, as opposed to merely presenting the issues, showing both sides of the story, and allowing the audience to decide.
I don't want to play preachy games though I know that they're going to become more common if political issues work there way into videogames. That's just going to happen eventually as the art form matures and while we'll get preachy games we'll also get some really good ones that aren't so biased. That's just how everything works - film, TV, music, etc.
I did however find Metal Gear Solid's anti-war messages to come across like an argument made by a 13 year old that think's he's so smart. When your characters have soliloquies to talk about how no one wins in war in a game where I'm shooting the f*ck out of people and being entertained by doing so it feels preachy. "Hey you enjoying this war related videogame! You're an idiot! War is bad!"
With videogames being a popular scapegoat for all the evils of society I do think the videogame industry should try to avoid controversy and a videogame promoting a political message that goes against a polictian's platform will make an easy scapegoat and cause a big hoopula. I'm against censorship but I do find it irresponsible and self-serving for companies like Rockstar for example to specialize in making controversial games. If the government comes in and regulates games then the medium is screwed. Personally I would try to not attract their attention until those in power are of a generation that grew up with the videogames and thus won't use them as a scapegoat because they personally enjoy them.
Post by: vudu on January 03, 2008, 06:31:45 AM
QuoteIronically enough, oil just hit $100 a barrel for the first time.
Originally posted by: pap64
The whole thing is basically a political commentary on how the scarcity of oil will drive the whole world into a war over the last oil resource. The game even goes as far as to predict how the lack of oil will drive half of the world into poverty, violence and the alliance of enemy countries (During the narration they say the whole thing started in 2008, and the game is scheduled to be released in February 2008. Coincidence or cleverly placed shock factor? You decide...).
QuoteYou mean like this?
Originally posted by: ShyGuy
I played that game Kairon, It was starving villagers in Haiti, I played it about a dozen times. If the mortality rate was really how it was in that game, Haiti would be a ghost island.
Post by: DAaaMan64 on January 03, 2008, 07:01:37 AM
I want to apologize for that speech. I'm sorry.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on January 03, 2008, 07:48:08 AM
Post by: DAaaMan64 on January 03, 2008, 07:51:03 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Professional 666
Sifu Pai Mei wouldn't apologize.
Oh your right.
5-Point Palm Exploding Heart Technique, your dead.
Post by: Smash_Brother on January 03, 2008, 11:38:03 AM
I think games should have commentary because, FFS, it's probably one of the only ways they'll ever be taken seriously as a medium. Not that games don't also need someone to point out the commentary when it happens, though.
Right now, when Jack Thompson goes after games, he conveniently ignores all of the games which lack any redeeming social value because they'd weaken his argument. It doesn't matter how much games try to become something more if the public will continue to condemn them all the same.
Post by: Plugabugz on January 03, 2008, 08:08:13 PM
By that time all the controversy in the world won't do much.
Post by: Kairon on January 03, 2008, 08:15:02 PM
Post by: Plugabugz on January 03, 2008, 08:33:52 PM
Social messages, for instance, in music and films is commonplace but games allows to make that a more interactive experience and when that hits the wider populace (Manhunt 2) everyone frowns upon the industry for allowing that to happen in the first place.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on January 03, 2008, 08:36:44 PM
Post by: Smash_Brother on January 04, 2008, 05:09:09 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Plugabugz...hits the wider populace (Manhunt 2) everyone frowns upon the industry for allowing that to happen in the first place.
And this is where gaming is being held to an unfair double standard.
Did people frown upon the movie industry when porno DVDs started being produced? Did they frown upon the book and print industry because of "romance" novels or graphic novels which are incredibly violent?
I've seen stuff in movies which is 10x worse than what I've seen in games, and yet people don't chastise movies for it because the rating system is understood and works well.
Manhunt doesn't make Deus Ex any less of a relevant piece of art simply because they loosely share the medium of "interactive entertainment" just as "Casa Blanca" isn't any less relevant because it's available on the same media format (DVD) as "Super Anal Sluts 5" or something.
Post by: DAaaMan64 on January 04, 2008, 05:24:16 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_BrotherQuote
"Back Door Sluts 9"
Fixxd
Post by: Smash_Brother on January 04, 2008, 06:29:40 AM
Post by: King of Twitch on January 06, 2008, 05:22:26 PM
Post by: Galford on January 08, 2008, 07:48:00 PM
A lot of eastern RPGS have Hinduism, Buddhism, Shinto, and other various eastern religions in them.
Also how many JRPGS have you played were God was the bad guy?
Religion and politcs have been in games for a long time, most people never paid attention.
Post by: ReverendNoahWhateley on January 08, 2008, 09:31:34 PM
Maybe that particular message is going right over my head. Or something. I dunno, I don't get these "message" thingies that the kids are all talking about these days.
Post by: Kairon on January 08, 2008, 09:41:11 PM
Post by: ReverendNoahWhateley on January 08, 2008, 09:59:39 PM
Post by: IceCold on January 09, 2008, 12:20:04 PM
QuoteSome Reverend
Maybe that particular message is going right over my head. Or something. I dunno, I don't get these "message" thingies that the kids are all talking about these days.
Post by: ReverendNoahWhateley on January 09, 2008, 09:56:42 PM
Turns out that lots of the people I found winning at Super Street Fighter II were, in fact, using drugs. So Capcom lied.
Post by: Kairon on January 10, 2008, 05:14:09 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: ReverendNoahWhateley
Back in MY day, we didn't have "messages." We were too busy being told by Capcom arcade games that, "Winners don't use drugs!" And then BAM! Stars 'n stripes shield to the face. That's not a "message," that's a wake-up call, America! Nothing subtle there, it's the Guys 'n Dolls of morality. Makes friggin' Metal Gear Solid look like Tolstoy or somethin'! So you can hardly blame me for being slow.
Turns out that lots of the people I found winning at Super Street Fighter II were, in fact, using drugs. So Capcom lied.
LOL!
Post by: DAaaMan64 on January 10, 2008, 05:35:14 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Galford
Here's another interesting point...
A lot of eastern RPGS have Hinduism, Buddhism, Shinto, and other various eastern religions in them.
Please may the world never be offended by culture.
Post by: Galford on January 10, 2008, 05:31:55 PM
I'm surprised no has brought Deus Ex yet.
There is a reason why the main character is called "JC".
Post by: KDR_11k on January 16, 2008, 07:18:39 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Galford
Also how many JRPGS have you played were God was the bad guy?
To be fair, if a competent government or an omnipotent entity was actually fighting for the good cause there wouldn't be much need for a spiky-haired youth with an oversized sword.
