Topic: Current WWII Shooters Are Unethical

[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?

[GoldenPhoenix]

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.

[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.

[Kairon]

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!!!!

[GoldenPhoenix]

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?

[NWR_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.  

[Kairon]

Checked out the NeoGAF thread. It wasn't TOO bad honestly...

[denjet78]

The only real situation that I can take a stand against is causing physical pain to another person without their consent. Outside of that everything else is so ambiguous that you can't really stand on any of it. Psychological. Emotional. It's all really a person by person basis.

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.

[GoldenPhoenix]

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).

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

"Why can't developers take a break from WWII shooters and create brand new, fictional ones?"

Cuz it's bad business since that requires more work rather than recycling events and digital assets and already-done research.

[ShyGuy]

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.

[Ian Sane]

"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?"

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.

[Chozo Ghost]

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....

[Smash_Brother]

I was gonna say, yeah, pirates are still very real and, unlike the movie pirates we tend to see, they're the type of individuals you'd rather not run into.

[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.  

[GoldenPhoenix]

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!

[Jonnyboy117]

Quote
Originally posted by: Chozo Ghost

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

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

[Shecky]

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.)

[UERD]

I personally do not believe ethics and morals are relative. But for the sake of this particular argument, they are. If we are to proclaim that a specific game (or any other form of media, for that matter) is unethical, we need to ask 'from whose viewpoint is it unethical- why does it matter?', and 'if it is unethical, what do we do about it?'

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?

[Mashiro]

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

[GoldenPhoenix]

Quote
Originally posted by: Mashiro

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

I'll get it locked again.

[Mashiro]

Quote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix

Quote
Originally posted by: Mashiro

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

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

[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.

[GoldenPhoenix]

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.

[Shecky]

I hope you realize that you are in essence mocking a moderator...