Post by: Jonnyboy117 on September 13, 2007, 03:43:39 PM
http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/newsArt.cfm?artid=14373
I'd really like to get some more input and thoughts on this topic and develop an interest in it going forward.
The gist of my stance: T-rated, sanitized games based on historical wars are both disrespecting the veterans and citizen casualties of the real events AND are desensitizing gamers to the realities of war, particularly the moral issues that soldiers and commanders have to deal with on the battlefield. Game developers boast about the painstaking authenticity of their gun models, sound effects, and environment layouts, yet these games have you shooting other humans with no bloodshed and vanishing corpses. As members of and consumers for the game industry, we should be asking ourselves whether the invasion of Normandy should be made fun.
In the podcast, I say that the most realistic representation of WWII that I've seen in a game is Conker's Bad Fur Day. That is sad, folks.
[Note: I also posted this on NeoGAF. The next time I even think about trying to start a serious discussion on GAF, please slap me thrice so I won't easily forget the lesson.]
[Note 2: In all fairness to GAF, a few people eventually entered the thread and started to actually discuss things, rather than just make fun of me for posing a serious philosophical question about video games. It's balancing out now.]
Post by: BranDonk Kong on September 13, 2007, 04:10:53 PM
Post by: darknight06 on September 13, 2007, 04:14:56 PM
Post by: UERD on September 13, 2007, 04:15:24 PM
Post by: IceCold on September 13, 2007, 04:20:46 PM
QuoteWell, Conflict: Vietnam did get made, but I don't know who published it..
Originally posted by: darknight06
I bet you neither EA or Activision would make a game out of Vietnam... and for the obvious reason.
Post by: NWR_insanolord on September 13, 2007, 05:43:43 PM
Post by: Shecky on September 13, 2007, 05:51:52 PM
Post by: Tanookisuit on September 13, 2007, 06:04:44 PM
Post by: Kairon on September 13, 2007, 06:53:59 PM
Also, Conker's Bad Fur Day was a GREAT game. Just.... wanted to say that.
Post by: Jonnyboy117 on September 13, 2007, 06:54:45 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Brandogg
Haven't EA and Infinity Ward both worked with actual WW2 vets and the History Channel when developing their games? A game is a game, you have to make it fun. If they were real war simulators, no one would buy them because they would be too sad. It's really not much different than say Trauma Center, where bandaging people up and extracting tumors is made into a game, aside from being based on actual events. It's certainly not disrespectful, they're just allowing players to pretend like they are in a war, without having to deal with the real consequences. As a consumer of the game industry, I *do* feel that *playing a game where you are a character* invading a digital reperesentaion of Normandy should be made fun.
There's a lot to think about in this post. Yes, the war game developers often work closely with veterans and historians to nail down the authenticity of certain elements in the game. As I say on the podcast, I think they're making all the wrong things authentic. They are spending a lot of effort to exactly model the guns and tanks, and yet the overall representation of the events is very cartoonish.
Trauma Center is an interesting game, in that they have intentionally made it cartoonish to avoid grossing out the player. I doubt many people could really be affected by Trauma Center, because it's so heavily based on fictional drama, and also because most of the surgeries themselves are fantasy-based (removing GUILT). With the war games, I think there is a major distinction between the fictional games and those based on real historical events.
Many video games are built on the idea of simulating a real experience that would be too dangerous or too expensive for most people to try in real life. That goes for most sports games, racing games, etc. But sports and racing aren't morally ambiguous activities, and they don't normally involve people dying (or killing). I can only think of a handful of games in which you are put in the situation of being able to kill virtual representations of real people: historical war games, Super Columbine RPG Massacre, that JFK assassination game, Conflict: Desert Storm (in which you can shoot Saddam Hussein), and that abysmal anti-terrorism game in which you can fight Osama bin Laden in a kung fu match. All of these games were controversial at some point, some extremely so, but WWII games are never controversial. The Vietnam games of a few years ago raised eyebrows, and rightly so. Now what is so different about making a Vietnam game and a WWII game?
I've been asked a few times whether it would be more respectful to have a WWII game be extremely bloody. Let me put it this way: can you imagine the mainstream reaction to a PG-rated WWII movie? The veterans would be outraged! Saving Private Ryan is one of the most revered war movies ever made, and it's extremely graphic and downright horrifying. I can understand why some vets wouldn't even be able to watch it. But I bet even those guys can respect it, because it doesn't make light of what happened. It doesn't sugarcoat the decision to take another man's life, even when you feel justified to do so.
I agree that a game taken to this level of realism and thoughtfulness would probably not be fun anymore. But this gets into an even larger question about video games: is it possible to create a game that is not necessarily fun, but still appealing to people in some other way? Is it necessary that interactivity = fun? If so, then video games are essentially toys and can never be anything more thanthat. But if this medium is a true art form, then at some point we have to get over the fun requirement and concede that interactive entertainment can be viable and compelling even if its aim is to teach us a history lesson or scare the daylights out of us. Millions of people have seen the movie Saw, and I doubt many of them truly had "fun" doing so, but they were still drawn to it for other reasons. It is still considered entertainment, and nothing but. (Sorry for that example... I actually think Saw is a terrible movie.)
Post by: nickmitch on September 13, 2007, 07:02:46 PM
Post by: King of Twitch on September 13, 2007, 07:25:53 PM
Call of Duty GC: Finest Hour GC: 7.0 - IGN
Call of Duty 2 GC: Big Red One GC: 8.0 - IGN
COD 3 Wii: 6.0, IGN: 7.7
MOH Vanguard Wii: 7.0 - IGN (press average: 5.8, ouch)
MOH European Assault GC: 5.5, IGN: 8.1
MOH Rising Sun GC: 7.0, IGN: 7.5
MOH Frontline GC: 7.5, IGN: 7.9
What is it about WW2 that brings out the mediocrity of these companies? So they can reuse sound effects and make a cardboard cutout of a bobbing gun, BFD. That can be reused for every game. I want to enjoy these games as an experience that a movie can't give you, but there is a severe shortage of merit. Enough cartoons, I say.
Post by: ShyGuy on September 13, 2007, 07:57:22 PM
Post by: Jonnyboy117 on September 13, 2007, 08:00:59 PM
I can't make this clear enough: I am only talking about games based on historical events.
Post by: ShyGuy on September 13, 2007, 08:06:10 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on September 13, 2007, 08:06:14 PM
Post by: Kairon on September 13, 2007, 09:19:13 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix
Ehhe, I don't think this is a big deal. Just like any war in history, I don't see any problem with putting your own twist on it to make it "fun".
But that's what Johhny is saying. Isn't the "funning" of war distorting the audience's perception of war, maybe even glamorizing it, and doing a disservice to the real, serious, and very important reasons about why these wars happened and what happened during them?
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on September 13, 2007, 09:28:48 PM
Of course it's entertainment: it's A DUMBED-DOWN FANTASY.
War isn't really "fun", it's quite a lot of hard work and bleeding, and even the tactical side of warfare in "gameplay" is largely removed from the games (see the rise and fall of tactical shooter genre). Sincere authenticity doesn't sell, cuz it's just overwhelming for all those mainstream bang-bang players.
Post by: Plugabugz on September 13, 2007, 09:33:55 PM
There's an article in the Metro today about a game (Blazing Angels: Secret of WWII) saying how they painstakingly created a 1940s-environment yet used modern weaponry in it. Weird design choice, but for those really there at the time it just weren't like that. They all don't recreate the emotional aspect.
Post by: Infernal Monkey on September 13, 2007, 10:01:49 PM
Post by: Darkheart on September 13, 2007, 10:09:07 PM
What if a war game had your brother fully modeled in 3-d and voiced? What if he got shot and dismembered into a bloody pile of remains? What if you had to sit there and listen to him screaming in pain as he died? Then at the end of the game you come home to see your own mother sobbing uncontrollably and your sister asking if you tried your best to save him? I don't think many people could sit through that if done right but obviously you couldn't have your family in the game.
I just strongly support Johnny's view I won't go into it further than that.
Post by: Deguello on September 13, 2007, 10:41:49 PM
This brings to light this ever elusive separation of Games to other forms of media. Films about current events can bring action or understanding of events because somebody is telling you something. Books can certainly influence action and understanding. Even music (big during the protest movements of the 60's-70's) can do so. The big thing about all these is that they are all passive as can be. Games are active. You participate. And this diffuses the ethical problems off of simply the directors and authors and musicians. In other media, they and they alone are responsible for their messages. With games, we would all share the guilt, because we all participate.
Post by: Hostile Creation on September 13, 2007, 11:11:16 PM
People are so passive nowadays, people are hardly ever willing to watch an engaging film, something that raises questions. They'd much rather watch something formulaic. Passive viewing in film is a tragedy, but it's even more tragic when we look at gaming. We have here perhaps the most involving and active form of entertainment/art available, and the most popular games are passive games, games that you can play without thinking. I don't care that Grand Theft Auto is hyper-violent, but it's possibly the most soulless game I've ever played. I won't get into the poor game design, miserable controls, careless visuals and story, but consider the fact that your eyes gloss over when you play the game. You blow up a streetside without considering the consequences, without even feeling the power of that explosion. It's a purely passive game, something meant for immediate satisfaction and nothing else. I despise that. Even if games like Metroid or Mario don't delve into psychological complexities or the ethical challenges facing our social landscape, at least they require coordination and stimulate the mind, intellectually and creatively.
But I would thrill to play a game that didn't shy away from true problems or issues. I don't think every game should be serious, I think you need escapism sometimes, brilliantly simple stuff like Jungle Beat, but we could certainly use a game that expanded our awareness of the world, to show what games could do. I could see a war game that delved into suffering, where you saw more of your comrades dying, maybe your own arm being blown off, seeing children murdered, and less of you gunning down the Nazis and performing heroics. You aren't the hero. You're one of the dozens of soldiers that make up one functional whole. And if you do accomplish anything, you've got to see the full spectrum of your actions. Who you've killed and who you've saved, if you're lucky enough to even manage that.
People would never go for that, not the ridiculous breed of gamers we have to put up with nowadays (not all of them, but the vast majority of them), but it'd be an interesting realm to explore. I wouldn't want it to be exploitive, of course, which would be hard to pull off. But imagine a game where there is no final villain, no saving the world, no heroics, just inevitable failure and obscurity.
I'm kind of rambling, it's very very very late. But I think the fantasy world of gaming has gotten a bit out of hand, and I'd really like to see something that challenged me with more than just a tough boss fight.
Post by: Darkheart on September 14, 2007, 12:02:03 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Hostile Creation
One thing preventing games becoming a legitimate art form is that people use it purely for the sake of escapism. Very few games ever have any substance whatsoever. Now, I do consider games an art form, and probably the most fascinating one currently available for consumption because it differs so greatly from every other one. I don't want to get into the "games as art" debate, because that's more or less irrelevant, but I bring it up because I don't know if I've ever seen a game face social or ethical problems in the way that books, films, or paintings so often do. Some games hint at them in a general way (Fire Emblem, for instance), but even the best of those games tend to be severely simplified, polarized to good and evil, made abstract and unrealistic to obscure the more serious issues they point to.
People are so passive nowadays, people are hardly ever willing to watch an engaging film, something that raises questions. They'd much rather watch something formulaic. Passive viewing in film is a tragedy, but it's even more tragic when we look at gaming. We have here perhaps the most involving and active form of entertainment/art available, and the most popular games are passive games, games that you can play without thinking. I don't care that Grand Theft Auto is hyper-violent, but it's possibly the most soulless game I've ever played. I won't get into the poor game design, miserable controls, careless visuals and story, but consider the fact that your eyes gloss over when you play the game. You blow up a streetside without considering the consequences, without even feeling the power of that explosion. It's a purely passive game, something meant for immediate satisfaction and nothing else. I despise that. Even if games like Metroid or Mario don't delve into psychological complexities or the ethical challenges facing our social landscape, at least they require coordination and stimulate the mind, intellectually and creatively.
But I would thrill to play a game that didn't shy away from true problems or issues. I don't think every game should be serious, I think you need escapism sometimes, brilliantly simple stuff like Jungle Beat, but we could certainly use a game that expanded our awareness of the world, to show what games could do. I could see a war game that delved into suffering, where you saw more of your comrades dying, maybe your own arm being blown off, seeing children murdered, and less of you gunning down the Nazis and performing heroics. You aren't the hero. You're one of the dozens of soldiers that make up one functional whole. And if you do accomplish anything, you've got to see the full spectrum of your actions. Who you've killed and who you've saved, if you're lucky enough to even manage that.
People would never go for that, not the ridiculous breed of gamers we have to put up with nowadays (not all of them, but the vast majority of them), but it'd be an interesting realm to explore. I wouldn't want it to be exploitive, of course, which would be hard to pull off. But imagine a game where there is no final villain, no saving the world, no heroics, just inevitable failure and obscurity.
I'm kind of rambling, it's very very very late. But I think the fantasy world of gaming has gotten a bit out of hand, and I'd really like to see something that challenged me with more than just a tough boss fight.
I like the point about Fire Emblem. I could beat that game in 20 hours or less if I wanted to but I invested too many hours into that game because I feel way too guilty if one of my people died. I will literally invest a hour or so into a battle and play it out. Then just when I am about to win I lose a character and due to that guilty emotion I feel like I have to reset the game and start all over. The story doesn't really get me that involved with these characters but that is just who I am.
I find it interesting that many games really don't make you feel loss. DO NOT TELL ME AERITHS DEATH FROM FF7 WAS EPIC LOSS It is not hard to easily list games that have characters that people feel "connected" with but we rarely have to lose them unless its the end of the game and we are done.
Look at Harry Potter, several phone services had to be opened across the world so children had an outlet where they could talk to counselors about how to deal with the deaths of characters of the 7th book. I even heard rumors that J.K. Rowling *spoiler from harry potter* wanted to kill Harry but was too afraid that children would do something crazy such as cut themselves or something serious like that if she had done it
I would like to now sort of split this discussion up. Does anyone here feel that we are not getting a WIDE variety of emotions from our video games. I have cried at sad moments in movies but the only times I have cried in video games are usually the endings because it is finally over. Do we have video games that evoke sadness as a theme of the game? The only game I have felt sad pretty much throughout the whole game was Shadow of the Collossus. I know a good friend of mine who is actually a HUGE lover of FPS war games couldn't get through half of that game because he felt too guilty killing those giant Collosi. Perhaps there is hope . . .
Post by: Shift Key on September 14, 2007, 02:33:44 AM
1. The old war games had to "cut corners" in order to make a visually appealing game, which involved such things as disappearing corpses and unrealistic blood effects. That style of game is probably still around even though the graphical horsepower has grown.
I remember playing Rainbow 6 on the N64 (not war i know but still an interesting case) - gunning down a terrorist, turning around, turning back to find the body gone, thinking "did he disappear to get his mates to shoot me?"
I haven't played any of the recent console games so I'm not sure if this generation of games still do it. But i definitely feel that having the corpses remain ingame will certainly go a long way to improving the realism of the game.
2. After seeing war movies and comparing them to war video games, I'm almost tempted to say "leave it to the movies".
The original Call of Duty on PC used the story from Enemy at the Gates for a chapter of the game. Being a conscripted soldier, dumped in Stalingrad without a gun and being ordered into battle. That was probably the best part of storytelling I'd seen from a war game as you didn't have a weapon and the story was told by people around you rather than starting off with a gun and knowing your objective from the start.
And Conker's Bad Fur Day was a parody of Saving Private Ryan (from what I remember, its been a few years).
It has been a tradition that war video games are focused heavily on action with story being used to convey objectives and missions.If you were going to take most of that action and replace it with storytelling or just waiting for battle, you really change the target audience. Some people aren't interested in a history lesson - they just want to shoot things.
Post by: NWR_Lindy on September 14, 2007, 02:44:01 AM
Entertainment is exploitive and trivializing, period. I don't see why video games are any better or worse, or should be held to any higher standard. Popular rap music exploits drug trafficking in black communities and trivializes its effects. Reality shows like "Flavor of Love" trivialize the effort that goes into finding the right person and making relationships work. Shows that feature clips of riots and convience-store robberies trivialize the terror that the victims were feeling, and the crimes committed. Shows like Dallas SWAT (was just watching this last night) trivialize the fact that the people getting arrested for dealing crack are going to jail for a long time, messing up their families and communities in the process. Heck, even movies in which one of the characters is dying of cancer trivializes the horrible experience that cancer victims go through. It's all the same.
Real-life isn't entertaining, which is why it's sanitized and regurgitated to the public in a form that they can experience (at a distance), and then walk away from. Good entertainment tells, or maybe even teaches, you something in the process; bad entertainment throws the shocking stuff out there with very little context, purely working on shock value. Jonny, I think your beef with these WWII shooters may be the fact that none of your actions are put in any sort of context beyond "It's you vs. the Nazis, and....GO!"
Post by: Chozo Ghost on September 14, 2007, 04:25:52 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Jonnyboy117
Wolfenstein might be unethical if Hitler had actually lived in a castle guarded by demons.
I can't make this clear enough: I am only talking about games based on historical events.
I disagree. Ethics are subjective, and what you see as unethical someone else may not. I don't think it is fair to target the video gaming medium either. We see tons of movies on historical events and books and so on. Why target only video games?
Indeed, why target anything at all? If it upsets you and if you find it unethical then simply don't purchase or play it. In the land of the free it is our right to play, though.
Post by: ShyGuy on September 14, 2007, 04:31:06 AM
Post by: Chozo Ghost on September 14, 2007, 04:34:47 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Silks
I don't think WWII is "morally ambiguous" like most wars. The Nazis are the easiest-to-demonize opponent anywhere. They're all evil, unthinking killers, right? Nobody, even Germans, care about the depiction of killing Nazis. I think, in this sense, any WWII videogame gets a "realism pass" as long as you're killing Nazis.
Well, you have to remember that every German was forced into the Nazi party during that time. Even the current Pope was a member (unwillingly)...
Post by: Jonnyboy117 on September 14, 2007, 04:40:16 AM
By the way, the scene in Conker's Bad Fur Day is a spoof of Saving Private Ryan, but I think it's also a commentary on how war games were presented back then. In 2000, there was no M-rated war game, so it was quite novel for the M-rated Conker to take on the subject. By using furry animals in helmets and flak jackets, Rare could get away with a more accurate depiction of war than any "realistic" game of the time. And the truly sad part is that the same commentary still works today, as realistic war games are still not really realistic. The Normandy scene in Conker is funny at first, because it's surprising, but Rare struck a serious tone in the boat and maintained it through the beach storm and beyond. After a few initial laughs, this sequence becomes truly horrifying and disturbing.
As for Dynasty Warriors, I have thought the same thing about it. There are some key differences. Dynasty Warriors is largely focused on a cast of characters, many of whom are likely fictional. And because the games are based on a book about a war thousands of years ago, even the historical events may be fictional. It's similar to making a game about a battle in the Bible (which would be controversial for other reasons,too). Did those events really happen, and did those named characters really exist? It's very difficult to say without multiple historical sources. So there is a factual ambiguity there that gives Dynasty Warriors a different twist on this argument.
I saw this free market argument on the GAF thread, too. It's such a cop out. The issue is not whether you should be allowed to buy something -- I'm not a censor. The issue is whether it is moral to develop or play a game like this. And yes, that is subjective under most definitions of morality, but subjectivity requires that you actually think about something. I don't think this issue is something that most people think about, and if they did contemplate it, they might change their actions. Maybe not, but it's still an interesting discussion. Simply declaring that there's a free market is not going to shut down a philosophical discussion. There's also a free market of ideas, and I'm going to talk about this idea and get others to talk about it, because that's what I want to do. If you live in a world where there are no morals, no ethics, only capitalism, then obviously this thread isn't for you, and you're not going to be able to contribute anything to it.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on September 14, 2007, 04:58:21 AM
1. Isn't this thread teetering on the edge of being religious and political
2. Why the heck is it it in the Nintendo Console discussion forum?
With those questions out of the way. I have a brief comment (I have more thoughts on this but this thread could get quite brutal if I threw them out there, especially since I do NOT believe WWII was a morally ambiguous war). One thing I APPRECIATE about War games, such as ones based off WWII is that they can open to the door to further studying of the event, I know on many occasions if I played a game or watched a movie about a war that I was interested in learning more, which I believe is showing the utmost respect. On another point, where exactly do you draw the line on accuracy? While I do believe war is justified in some cases, there are still things that go on that are NOT justified, such as well, things like rape. Should that be included in the game as well?
Post by: ShyGuy on September 14, 2007, 05:00:11 AM
Okay, one more question: What about strategy games? There are dozens of WWII strategy games on the PC. Heck, is the Axis & Allies board game immoral?
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on September 14, 2007, 05:13:06 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: ShyGuy
So if we wait enough years, WWII games will become ethically and morally acceptable? this may be getting too far down the path of the nature of morality
Okay, one more question: What about strategy games? There are dozens of WWII strategy games on the PC. Heck, is the Axis & Allies board game immoral?
You know that is EXACTLY what I was thinking, where do you draw the line between time passed and whether or not it is moral to take creative license with it. 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.
Post by: Case on September 14, 2007, 05:20:28 AM
What you are doing here, is opening up a scary prospect for us all.. Pandora's box is so pretty. ^__^
These games are what I refer to as "texts".
Audiovisual texts.
There are hundreds and hundreds of texts, audio visual and otherwise that represent or/and are based on WWII and other wars.
The only people, on this earth who have a right to discuss whether or not these texts are accurate or unethical (ie. Was Conker from Bad Fur Day indeed in that real life battle? Hehehe) are the real life veterans themselves.
It's hard to do isn't it? So, we have other texts that tell us what happened to refer to – diachronic texts.
Historical texts.
However.... these texts.... maybe written by, say..
An American....
Or maybe, a former member of the Soviet Union....
What gives these people the right to write these texts? The fact that they have done the research... however... which one would be more well received by say.. an American audience; the one written by the American, yes? 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.
Information is so important.
These texts are so important.
These games are made for a western dominated society.
We can kill Nazis. And laugh. But why, exactly why do we laugh?
We laugh, and have fun, because of our history.. out past.
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...
As a (struggling) academic, it is my job to rip apart all these texts.
It is also my job to try and decide whether or not; video games are good, well-structured texts or/and narratives.
If I think of it on the surface.. you could pretty much assume that, no, video games probably don't have well structured narratives and representations of ideologies and culture...
...until you look at a game like Metal Gear Solid 3, which is extremely cinematic.
Dramatic movies should be viewed in a serious light.
When we watched Apocalypse Now in Culture and Texts, it was pretty damn scary.
The same scenario portrayed in Conkers Bad Fur Day? It's humorous... we need to ask ourselves, why?
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.
Post by: NWR_insanolord on September 14, 2007, 05:22:48 AM
I don't see this as a legitimate place to draw the line for what is acceptable in terms of games. Why is killing someone in World War II any worse than killing someone in a fictional situation? And GP has a point, historical situations in games (or movies or any form of entertainment) can lead to someone taking an interest in studying the topic.
Post by: bustin98 on September 14, 2007, 06:12:38 AM
What these games offer is a way to study certain situations and an opportunity to discover which tactics work under the existing circumstances. If you want to close your mind to everything except the personal feelings of those who were there first hand then we'll never come closer to understanding anything as a nation. I know people who do not like the Burnout series because its a horrific reminder of actual car crashes they've witnessed. But my daughter now knows how bad a crash can be without being part of it (that's not a perfect example, I have to add a bit more to it for her but you get the drift).
For most games, fun is derived from overcoming the challenge to accomplish the goals set before you. WWII games seem to offer an excellent set of resources to provide both goals and opposition. And while we're at it, why not learn a few geography and history lessons on the way?
Post by: Smash_Brother on September 14, 2007, 06:52:26 AM
It was a RTS game by Bungie Software which was one of the few games which I felt TRULY made war feel real, even though it was a fantasy setting. Between each level, there were story screens which had a narrator reading his journal about the war and it was generally heavily laden with sadness.
My point is that Myth was an excellent game while at the same time lending the appropriate gravity to the situation, something which I agree that these war games just don't do. I'd have more respect for the WWII genre if the games gave more of a nod to the truth of the situation than glazing over it.
Also, if anyone is interested in the subject of soldiers being drafted against their will, they should read "Citizen Soldier" which discusses cases where German and American patrols would just pass each other in the night and nod hello and a situation where an American translator actually sat down in a German camp and, after some time talking with the guys there, made it known that he was a translator and they didn't care.
The point is, killing in these wars generally only happened under the eyes of a senior officer.
Post by: Ian Sane on September 14, 2007, 06:52:35 AM
The whole thing seems kind of like going to all the trouble to make a historically accurate war movie and then turning the conflict into a PG-13 action movie. The best war movies portray war as so horrifying that after you see it you don't want to be involved in a war. In videogames the entertainment is in being in the war. They design it so that you want to be in the war. That is kind of messed up. I don't think there are any moral issues with it but it's probably not a good idea to give young people that attitude about war and to bother being historically accurate when the execution is such that something fictional like Wolfenstein 3D would do the trick.
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.
Post by: Arbok on September 14, 2007, 07:08:52 AM
On the flip side, though, as much as I love Advance Wars... the very last secret level of the GBA game just... never sat well with me. It's the "gentlemen's rivalry match" between Andy and Eagle which I just found appalling in that context considering that, even though it's cartoony in depiction, the troops are dying on the battle field for the two COs.
As for WW2, as some stated, it's probably the most classic example of "good vs. evil" that makes it a popular subject matter, but as Smash_Brother stated it does dumb down all of the elements at play in that war, or really any war.
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.
Now this has to be one of the greatest ideas I have heard in awhile. Kudos for coming up with it.
Post by: Nick DiMola on September 14, 2007, 07:13:28 AM
"War games should be survival horror because that's what war is, Survival Horror."
Post by: Chiller on September 14, 2007, 07:17:17 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
I wouldn't consider this unethical. Disrespectful maybe but not unethical.
Ditto.
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. We, of course, may feel however we want about these games. That doesn't mean they have an obligation to not offend people, or not produce them.
Incidentally, I know current, and former servicemen who play these types of games, and do not find them degrading, or feel that they trivialize what they are doing, or have done, in actual combat.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on September 14, 2007, 07:56:33 AM
Let's for arguments sake take this topic a bit further, what about Pirate movies and games? ARe they being disrespectful to the thousands of people who were raped, murdered, and pillaged by pirates? Pirates have been glamorized like crazy when in reality they were some of the most brutal and violent people around. Let me state that I like the glamorized pirates but at the same time I think the glamorization has kept the truth alive, at least for me, because it gave me interest in researching more about them.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on September 14, 2007, 07:58:20 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: ChillerQuote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
I wouldn't consider this unethical. Disrespectful maybe but not unethical.
Ditto.
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. We, of course, may feel however we want about these games. That doesn't mean they have an obligation to not offend people, or not produce them.
Incidentally, I know current, and former servicemen who play these types of games, and do not find them degrading, or feel that they trivialize what they are doing, or have done, in actual combat.
Yeah "Of Course" ethics are purely subjective. ::rolls eyes::. See what I mean about this thread becoming a religious and political thread.
Post by: Chozo Ghost on September 14, 2007, 08:01:48 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Mr. Jack
I believe the point Ian has made is right on and was made in this week's podcast as well.
"War games should be survival horror because that's what war is, Survival Horror."
Not if you happen to be the General.
It can be a bit frustrating at times, but you never die in something like Advance Wars; you just send others to die. And as someone else pointed out, it is a bit cartoony and I remember how the dialogue would mention root beer at one point, even though I'm sure that's not the beverage that particular person really prefered... so that was censored, but troops and tanks (with their crews) being blown to smithereens on the battlefield is okay? That is one of the things I find strange about advance wars.
I see my Advance Wars DS game box has an "E" rating on it... now that's really strange. I mean, I strongly oppose censorship of any kind, but why not at least a T rating in this particular instance? No war game should be "E" for "Everyone".
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on September 14, 2007, 08:05:53 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Chozo GhostQuote
Originally posted by: Mr. Jack
I believe the point Ian has made is right on and was made in this week's podcast as well.
"War games should be survival horror because that's what war is, Survival Horror."
Not if you happen to be the General.
It can be a bit frustrating at times, but you never die in something like Advance Wars; you just send others to die. And as someone else pointed out, it is a bit cartoony and I remember how the dialogue would mention root beer at one point, even though I'm sure that's not the beverage that particular person really prefered... so that was censored, but troops and tanks (with their crews) being blown to smithereens on the battlefield is okay? That is one of the things I find strange about advance wars.
I see my Advance Wars DS game box has an "E" rating on it... now that's really strange. I mean, I strongly oppose censorship of any kind, but why not at least a T rating in this particular instance? No war game should be "E" for "Everyone".
In advance wars you just get knocked out
. I really disagree with no game getting an E though, because I think every child should get some exposure to "war" even if it is in a fictional universe, then later on that can be built on to learn more about it. You can technically stretch this to any other game that portrays "violence" of any kind saying that it dumbs down the "killing" of things. Heck Mario squashing a goomba makes it fun to kill things!
Post by: Smash_Brother on September 14, 2007, 08:08:18 AM
I've yet to see a WWII shooter that has done justice to the subject matter, really. Devs who make these seem to think they can throw in a shell-shock effect and a war-related quote when your character dies and it's all good, and never mind about the fact that you take gunfire and can then duck behind a wall for a few seconds and you're suddenly fine again.
I think the point remains valid: no developer has yet gone for full-blown authenticity in a WWII game, but it's high time one of them actually tried.
Post by: jakeOSX on September 14, 2007, 08:09:21 AM
first off, it is most important that any battles based on real battles be accurate. meaning that if Britain loses the battle, no heroism from the player can change that. i think the historical aspects should be kept true. (arguably that WW2 online changes this, but its intent is not a recreation, but rather an open ended 'what if'?)
the hard part about upping the 'realism' is making a player care about the other NPC's. wingmen, marines, that guy you saved in a different cell block, whatever, they are still just a part of the game. (and even worse if there is a resurrect spell). if he dies, so what?
as for 'sadness' from a game, i think it is hard. fire emblem is a great example, permanent character death... but if they die i hit power and reset the level. for other games, like FF7, the death is part of the story, so i couldn't change it anyway. these two things make it harder, i believe.
now fear? that i've felt during a game (thank you resident evil and the suffering) being emersed in the game leads to better horror i think. excited? sure, determined? yes.
it is an intriguing side question tho. as a writer and a gamer i am now curious how you could craft a game that would be as good as a book. what aspects of the 'game' take away from the 'story'? is it your involvement? is it the lack of control? is it simply the fact that there is a power button...
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on September 14, 2007, 08:15:06 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
I think the point Johnny is trying to make is that current war shooters are war "lite" and use the games more for a setting which approximates good vs. evil in the eyes of most.
I've yet to see a WWII shooter that has done justice to the subject matter, really. Devs who make these seem to think they can throw in a shell-shock effect and a war-related quote when your character dies and it's all good, and never mind about the fact that you take gunfire and can then duck behind a wall for a few seconds and you're suddenly fine again.
I think the point remains valid: no developer has yet gone for full-blown authenticity in a WWII game, but it's high time one of them actually tried.
Well accesibility is important to any game, so I don't have much of a problem with the healing. Really though it is quite hard to make a game that simulates war, because really if you get hit with a bullet, chances are you will die or be seriously hurt and cannot continue, that is pretty hard to integrate into a game without dumbing down other elements to make it easier "avoid" stuff. With that said I would definately like to see a more realistic experience if it can be pulled off, especially since immersion is becoming more important in gaming.
Post by: Smash_Brother on September 14, 2007, 08:23:57 AM
For starters, why haven't we seen a WWII shooter which involves you liberating a concentration camp and brining medical aid to the emaciated prisoners?
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on September 14, 2007, 08:36:52 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
I was talking with Cap and he actually gave me a plethora of ideas on what could be done to aid this genre.
For starters, why haven't we seen a WWII shooter which involves you liberating a concentration camp and brining medical aid to the emaciated prisoners?
Hmmm, sounds interesting. You know even though I don't think the WWII games "unethical" it has gotten super stale and overused, but something like you suggested along with more integration of emotion, especially of the disturbing nature that makes you think, could liven up the genre again. One interesting take would be playing as a Nazi soldier but one who is against the atrocities that are occuring, perhaps even one who was stationed at a concentration camp. You could create a game around this Nazi soldier trying to change things from the inside, perhaps even secretly helping those in a concentration camp.
Post by: Kairon on September 14, 2007, 08:45:19 AM
Also, move this thread to the general forums?
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on September 14, 2007, 08:50:53 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
Ooh, I like that idea GP. Let us play a friggin' German for once! Especiually done in a Half-Life style, so its half FPS half adventure... yup!
Also, move this thread to the general forums?
I always like games that let you try things from another perspective, and I think WWII would be the perfect setting for it. While individuals like Hitler did some truly evil things, there were many who did not agree with what was going on but had no real choice, some of which were threatened with the murdering of their families if they didn't do what they were told. It could really make for a fascinating game to have this moral conflict and doing your best to work secretly to bring about change while not getting revealed as a traitor.
Also if this thread isn't moved to the General Chat, I will get Evan to move it, just like I got him to close the HAWTNESS thread. So don't make me go that far.
Post by: Ian Sane on September 14, 2007, 09:00:39 AM
I guess the logic is that that was a long time ago and no one who lived then is still alive. Wait long enough and person's remains become the property of a museum. There are World War II veterans that are still alive. There are people who, even they weren't soldiers, lived during the time of World War II. And we're all still young enough that the world we live in is affected by that war. It hasn't even been 100 years. Even if we don't feel it our parents did. When my Dad was a kid World War I veterans were everywhere. Events of the last century are recent enough that there is still a connection. The age of pirates is so long ago that it might as well be a fantasy to everyone alive. In the year 2100 they'll probably glorify the wars of the 20th century as that will be a long distant world.
Post by: Kairon on September 14, 2007, 09:03:36 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix
Also if this thread isn't moved to the General Chat, I will get Evan to move it, just like I got him to close the HAWTNESS thread. So don't make me go that far.
That was YOU? RAAAARRRGGGHHH!!!!
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on September 14, 2007, 09:05:15 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"Let's for arguments sake take this topic a bit further, what about Pirate movies and games? ARe they being disrespectful to the thousands of people who were raped, murdered, and pillaged by pirates?"
I guess the logic is that that was a long time ago and no one who lived then is still alive. Wait long enough and person's remains become the property of a museum. There are World War II veterans that are still alive. There are people who, even they weren't soldiers, lived during the time of World War II. And we're all still young enough that the world we live in is affected by that war. It hasn't even been 100 years. Even if we don't feel it our parents did. When my Dad was a kid World War I veterans were everywhere. Events of the last century are recent enough that there is still a connection. The age of pirates is so long ago that it might as well be a fantasy to everyone alive. In the year 2100 they'll probably glorify the wars of the 20th century as that will be a long distant world.
So what you are saying, it is only disrespectful if the people are alive that experienced it? If that is what you are saying, does that mean they could treat the Civil War as fantasy as well? Or perhaps the Revolutionary war?
Post by: NWR_pap64 on September 14, 2007, 09:12:00 AM
Seriously they need to take a break from them. Simply because a couple of them became successful it doesn't mean that ALL of them should make one.
Post by: Kairon on September 14, 2007, 09:14:43 AM
Post by: denjet78 on September 14, 2007, 09:19:41 AM
WWII shooters? I don't like them myself. I don't like anything that glamorizes violence... But I own a number of Resident Evil games and have enjoyed them. So do I believe that fantasy violence is more acceptable? I find GTA to be despicable beyond comprehension however. Much like everyone else I'm filled with conflicting ideals.
I think the biggest issue that I have with shooting games in general is that they're all the same. There is so much more than can be done with them. Where are the games where you're the general and you have to make real sacrifices? Where you have to knowingly send your troops, who you've grown to care for and look after, into a situation where you know none of them will return and that there's little to no hope of actual success? Where are the games where you're a field medic who has to care for your injured companions while at the same time trying your hardest not to get killed yourself? Will you help the injured enemy as well, or will you let him die? Worse... will you actively kill him? Where are the games where you play as the enemy? Where you live as they do? Where you learn to see through their eyes and come to understand that just like you, they only think they're doing what they think is right? Where are the games that take place after the war? Where you have to learn how to survive and rebuild after success and even failure? Just because a war is declared over that's not necessarily all she wrote. How will the winners treat the losers? Was there even a winner or was the devastation so great that neither side could claim victory? Or even better, how did this war begin in the first place? Who was the real aggressor? Who stepped up when they needed to and who hid behind rhetoric or politics so they wouldn't have to get involved? Only one aspect of these situations ever seems to be explored: The super heroic soldier who single handedly saves the day with little more than his gun and his wits. It's so incredibly fake. Video games now a days are little more than the glorified superhero comic books of the 1950's.
Of course with time and age that will change. But for now the medium is still in its infancy.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on September 14, 2007, 09:29:30 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: pap64
Here's a wild idea....Why can't developers take a break from WWII shooters and create brand new, fictional ones? That way, you can have war lites, not worry about authenticity and offending the fighters!
Seriously they need to take a break from them. Simply because a couple of them became successful it doesn't mean that ALL of them should make one.
I agree 100%, though I do love Company of Heroes and the CoD games (though thankfully they have realized that the series needed a new setting for the next game).
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on September 14, 2007, 10:29:38 AM
Cuz it's bad business since that requires more work rather than recycling events and digital assets and already-done research.
Post by: ShyGuy on September 14, 2007, 11:06:52 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
I wouldn't consider this unethical. Disrespectful maybe but not unethical.
The whole thing seems kind of like going to all the trouble to make a historically accurate war movie and then turning the conflict into a PG-13 action movie. The best war movies portray war as so horrifying that after you see it you don't want to be involved in a war. In videogames the entertainment is in being in the war. They design it so that you want to be in the war. That is kind of messed up. I don't think there are any moral issues with it but it's probably not a good idea to give young people that attitude about war and to bother being historically accurate when the execution is such that something fictional like Wolfenstein 3D would do the trick.
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.
Holy Crap, Ian is right. He also agrees with Jonny's good point from the Podcast #69 (listen n00bs!) about War being survival horror. A war survival horror game could be fantastic. Actually, Eternal Darkness used WWI as a backdrop for a level and it was done well.
Post by: Ian Sane on September 14, 2007, 11:45:34 AM
I'm not saying that's a good thing. It just seems to be how it works.
"Holy Crap, Ian is right. He also agrees with Jonny's good point from the Podcast #69 (listen n00bs!) about War being survival horror."
Since I'm at work I didn't listen to the podcast. It's just fluke that I made the same point. Though now that I know he said it I agree with his point.
In general I think death is treated too lightly in videogames. I'm not suggesting Kojima's insane rip-off idea of the game breaking when the player fails but I think making death a bigger deal in games would result in some new experiences. War themed games aside the fear of dying where you can't just pop back up with another continue would make for an intense game. How to do it without pissing off the player is the challenge. There's a lot of potential for videogames that create emotions beyond just the thrill of winning vs. losing.
Post by: Chozo Ghost on September 14, 2007, 12:12:08 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"Let's for arguments sake take this topic a bit further, what about Pirate movies and games? ARe they being disrespectful to the thousands of people who were raped, murdered, and pillaged by pirates?"
I guess the logic is that that was a long time ago and no one who lived then is still alive. Wait long enough and person's remains become the property of a museum. There are World War II veterans that are still alive. There are people who, even they weren't soldiers, lived during the time of World War II. And we're all still young enough that the world we live in is affected by that war. It hasn't even been 100 years. Even if we don't feel it our parents did. When my Dad was a kid World War I veterans were everywhere. Events of the last century are recent enough that there is still a connection. The age of pirates is so long ago that it might as well be a fantasy to everyone alive. In the year 2100 they'll probably glorify the wars of the 20th century as that will be a long distant world.
But there are still pirates today, Ian. They don't fit the stereotype of having a wooden leg, a hook, and a parrot on their shoulders anymore but they are still very real. Look on google for pirates around Indonesia and East Africa if you don't believe me.
As for still being effected by war, heck we're still affected by every war. The wounds heal, but they all leave scars and end up changing the world forever. Like, look at the Persian war with Greece. That's as ancient a war as you could ever find, yet the outcome effects us all to this day.
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....
Post by: Smash_Brother on September 14, 2007, 12:24:38 PM
Post by: ShyGuy on September 14, 2007, 12:59:39 PM
I'm waiting for "Child-Molester my Ride" by the year 2025.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on September 14, 2007, 01:06:14 PM
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.
That is definately true. Anyway back on topic, the only time I would say something is disrespectful or "unethical" is when something in a based on setting is attributed to an individual or side something terrible they did that didn't occur. Really what I want to know is what the veterans think of the WWII games, not what someone thinks they would be offended by. Who knows they may see the games as a compliment (well at least the ally side) and may feel some pride that they are considered heroes which the vast majority of WWII games portray them as. Heck I know a talk show personality who is a veteran from Iraq and he LOVES war games.
What I find funny about things like this, where people who are commenting aren't even close to being in that groups shoes, is that many times it turns out that the group they attribute offense to doesn't even give a crap or may feel the exact opposite. So how about instead of saying what is unethical, ethical or offensive, let's try to find someone who has been in WWII and ask them. Sounds like a good exercise for all of us!
Post by: Jonnyboy117 on September 14, 2007, 01:21:52 PM
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.
Post by: Shecky on September 14, 2007, 01:41:07 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
In general I think death is treated too lightly in videogames. I'm not suggesting Kojima's insane rip-off idea of the game breaking when the player fails but I think making death a bigger deal in games would result in some new experiences. War themed games aside the fear of dying where you can't just pop back up with another continue would make for an intense game. How to do it without pissing off the player is the challenge. There's a lot of potential for videogames that create emotions beyond just the thrill of winning vs. losing.
That's a natural tussle. To make it "realistic" the challenges have to be near impossible. After all, a lot of folks died in these World Wars, the stats are against you. Obviously if you allow the user to play again at all they will have foresight into the attack that killed them. Thus making it a game of memory, and frustrating to the user. Make that challenge randomly appear instead? Even more frustrating for the user, as they now need to try and seemingly get lucky to encounter the situation in favorable conditions (prepared to tackle the fight, etc.)
Post by: UERD on September 14, 2007, 02:23:48 PM
The first question is theoretical in basis. By whose standards are we calling war games (and by extension, war and its representations) unethical? People have different feelings about war, and about WWII. Some people feel that all violence is immoral, others feel that wars are bad in general (but WWII was a more just conflict than most), and a small minority believe that war is inherently glorious. People who view WWII as ultimately a just conflict against a foe that was quite evil are going to be more comfortable with the current way WWII games are made than people who take a more nuanced view. Also important are the roles that these games play. For many people, they are simply entertainment and nothing to get worked up over (this is the view most people seem to be taking, and it is the one I am inclined towards). Others feel like games provide meaningful social commentary and that their players do form opinions about history, warfare, and WWII in part by playing those games, and that the views these games espouse are distorting those opinions.
The second question is where people start getting touchy. Most democratic countries have free speech laws in place that allow developers to depict historical events in the form of video games in pretty much whatever manner they want (Germany may be an exception). If we do agree somehow that WWII games are immoral, unethical, or simply disrespectful, what are we to do? Boycott game developers that make those sort of games? Petition for better representation of the horrors of warfare? Simply refuse to play those games? And how should other people respond? Unfortunately, video game companies are in the business primarily to make money (just like movie studios, or the companies that publish books). If arcade-fun morally simplistic action-hero style WWII games sell (and they do), why should they bother changing up the formula- especially since it is almost guaranteed to reduce sales? To whom do they hold an obligation to accurately represent historical events- to their shareholders? The people who buy games? The people who make them? Or do war veterans simply deserve this obligation by the virtue of the sacrifices they have made? Ultimately, why does the debate matter- what are we going to do about it?
Post by: Mashiro on September 14, 2007, 02:32:06 PM
Quote
Ultimately, why does the debate matter- what are we going to do about it?
Should the HAWTNESS thread be unlocked. That is what is at stake!
/derailed
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on September 14, 2007, 02:35:21 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: MashiroQuote
Ultimately, why does the debate matter- what are we going to do about it?
Should the HAWTNESS thread be unlocked. That is what is at stake!
/derailed
I'll get it locked again.
Post by: Mashiro on September 14, 2007, 02:37:45 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenixQuote
Originally posted by: MashiroQuote
Ultimately, why does the debate matter- what are we going to do about it?
Should the HAWTNESS thread be unlocked. That is what is at stake!
/derailed
I'll get it locked again.
You're censoring those ideals though GP and thus not allowing us to learn more about the history of HAWTNESS. Just because it is displayed in a way that may be inaccurate to reality doesn't mean it's bad. We're trying to learn more about HAWTNESS through this method.
You're being hypocritical
Post by: Kairon on September 14, 2007, 02:50:51 PM
Ditto for war.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on September 14, 2007, 02:54:18 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
Yeah, as disrespectful as the hotness thread is to actual hawt Nintendo characters (like Perrin Kaplan), a much bigger disrespect would be pretending that it doesn't exist.
Ditto for war.
I find your bloody cat car disrespectful to both animals and cars, because when they die they aren't labeled with dead.
Post by: Shecky on September 14, 2007, 03:44:33 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on September 14, 2007, 05:50:37 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Shecky
I hope you realize that you are in essence mocking a moderator...
Am I supposed to be scared?
Post by: Shift Key on September 14, 2007, 07:27:55 PM
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.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on September 14, 2007, 08:28:12 PM
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.
Post by: Chozo Ghost on September 15, 2007, 01:08:07 AM
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.
Post by: Chozo Ghost on September 15, 2007, 01:15:53 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Jonnyboy117Quote
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.
Post by: Case on September 15, 2007, 04:37:56 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Shift KeyQuote
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. :P
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.
Post by: ShyGuy on September 15, 2007, 05:12:38 AM
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.
Post by: LuigiHann on September 15, 2007, 06:44:17 AM
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.
Post by: Kairon on September 15, 2007, 09:30:28 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: ShyGuyQuote
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!
Post by: UERD on September 15, 2007, 11:54:52 AM
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?
Post by: Case on September 15, 2007, 05:44:02 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: UERDQuote
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.. >__<
Post by: Infernal Monkey on September 15, 2007, 09:31:27 PM
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.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on September 15, 2007, 11:17:37 PM
Post by: Svevan on September 16, 2007, 08:16:53 PM
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.
Post by: Kairon on September 16, 2007, 08:26:17 PM
... only, now I feel ashamed of myself for some unknown reason...
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on September 16, 2007, 08:27:10 PM
Post by: ShyGuy on September 16, 2007, 08:36:33 PM
Post by: UERD on September 17, 2007, 04:35:04 AM
Post by: jakeOSX on September 17, 2007, 08:40:45 AM
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.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on September 17, 2007, 09:04:12 AM
Post by: ShyGuy on December 07, 2007, 07:44:12 AM
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.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on December 07, 2007, 01:57:00 PM
Post by: redgiemental on December 11, 2007, 12:35:05 AM
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.
Post by: Kairon on December 11, 2007, 05:18:02 AM
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.
Post by: Smash_Brother on December 11, 2007, 06:31:38 AM
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.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on December 11, 2007, 06:42:49 AM
Post by: Kairon on December 11, 2007, 07:01:08 AM
Post by: Smash_Brother on December 11, 2007, 07:47:05 AM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on December 11, 2007, 09:46:01 AM
Post by: Smash_Brother on December 11, 2007, 04:16:25 PM
WWS could easily have the same thing going for it.
Post by: Smash_Brother on December 11, 2007, 04:16:25 PM
Post by: Kairon on December 11, 2007, 04:37:44 PM
Post by: Infernal Monkey on December 11, 2007, 05:38:45 PM
Every episode! In one sitting! No toilet breaks! Go go go!
Post by: ShyGuy on December 11, 2007, 06:45:39 PM
Post by: oohhboy on December 11, 2007, 10:20:50 PM
Band of Brothers was something else. Initially you felt like you were on an adventure, off to the big war so everybody can go be heros. Boot camp ends with everybody rightly pissed off at Ross. Then the bullets start flying. Your sitting there with them in the fox hole while the forest explodes. A far superior experience.
I have yet to ever play any war game that replicates any of that. Every war game out there just throws the bad guy of said period at you until you wipe out the the 5th SS Panzer division. What would make an interesting experience would be those peace keeping missions you keep hearing about. Sure you do have a gun, but your not really suppose to use it.
Post by: IceCold on December 12, 2007, 08:38:15 AM
Post by: jakeOSX on December 13, 2007, 07:36:23 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: redgiemental
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.
not at all. i was starting to wonder if i had dreamed up that long post for naught. =)
there are games that get my heart pounding. where i am intent on the screen, sweaty handed, sometimes even shaking, trying to stay alive, intend, damn near AFRAID. but they are never war games. the suffering was one. resident evil. hell, even manhunt 2 has had its moments where i am into it.
the difference is in the technique. survival horror is, as it sounds, about making the possiblity of living scary. you have one mission, live. where in war games, you have to blow up this bunker. you have to take that hill. it becomes an action game.
i guess the real question is: is it unethical to play historical events? not to quote myself, but i still stand by this part:
Quote
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.
could we ever put the horrors of war in a game? i certainly hope not.
i played lots of starcraft. and one of the things i did at first, as 'general' of this 'army' was to be concerned about each unit on the screen. after all, each marine is a human being i am ordering into battle. i would create rescue parties, and heavy protective forces to keep losses at a minimum. but that isn't the way you win the game. (insert metaphor here)
war games in general are an interesting topic of ethics. is WWII better than say counterstrike, which pits "the good guys" against "terrorists"? battlefield vietnam didn't do so well. i've never heard of any gulf war game getting rave reviews. was that execution? or subject matter? was there an issue with Spartan Total Warrior?
oh, and to clarify, i think that games have given me an appreciation for certain aspects of war. books, movies, etc, have added to this. i would never say that it is the same thing.
personally, i am so tired of WWII shooters... Whatever happened to killing daemons from hell? what was wrong that?
oh and star wars battlefront. which needs a wii edition. now.
Post by: Kairon on December 13, 2007, 07:49:32 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: jakeOSX
oh and star wars battlefront. which needs a wii edition. now.
QFT. OMG, sooo QFT.
I think that's great insight you have about how war games turn into action games. I wonder what would happen in a war game that was objectiveless, and the only way to get to the next level was to survive that particular "encounter," win or lose...
Post by: Smash_Brother on December 13, 2007, 08:55:00 AM
My father loves to watch war movies and play war-based strategy games, but even he said that the theory of war is great while the reality is horrible.
I'd definitely like to see a war game done properly for a change.
