Wasn't there a game company who tried releasing missions based on real conflicts as they happen?
I know they released one based on Fallujah.
It's called Kuma Wars. Apparently they even made a sequel using the Source engine. Here's a news story talking about it's popularity in Iraq.
The programming is the work of New York-based Kuma Reality Games, which specializes in re-creating battles based on actual news events. Its motto is candid: "In a world being torn apart by international conflict, one thing is on everyone's mind as they finish watching the nightly news: 'Man, this would make a great game.'
um yeah...
krapst78 on
Hello! My name is Inigo Montoya! You killed my father prepare to die!
Looking for a Hardcore Fantasy Extraction Shooter? - Dark and Darker
If they're letting you play as the Taliban in the campaign, that's a problem. Especially if it tries to be somewhat sympathetic.
I don't see how that is problematic. In fact, I wish someone would do that.
It kind of makes sense for even like, WWII. Playing as a German soldier (NOT a card carrying Nazi soldier) who is sympathetic as a human being can be good story telling and historical reference.
Playing a suicide bomber in the streets of the middle east? There's a lot less sympathetic human and a lot more crazy ass fundamentalist.
Here's a thought: If they wanted to remove the Taliban as the enemy faction because it might upset people, remove the Coalition forces from the game. Now it's no longer personal to anyone, now it's just a game about two groups of people shooting each other.
I fail to see why it's so important on what enemy is in a video game when you're playing a real world country's military. In COD4: MW or MW2, the enemy may have been fictionalize but the friendlies on the screen where not. Why is it then acceptable for you to play as some fictional Russian ultra-nationalist's or some fictional revolutionary Middle Eastern brown people, and shoot at USMC Recon, US Army Rangers, and British SAS? Those are all real organizations, but it's fine for those representations to die on screen?
Hell toss in a level where you play a Taliban sniper for all I care. The whole thing is fictionalized, and if you can't separate what is fact from fiction, maybe you shouldn't be playing video games in the first place.
And no video game has come close to what real war is like for the sole reason that there is no emotional attachment at all to anything in the game. You don't care much if your character dies, or if their buddies die, etc... it means nothing to you other than an inconvenience. There's no fear for, not just your life, but the people around you. It's like lighting a straw on fire and sucking through it to imitate a cigarette. It's close, maybe in a way, but it's missing all of the important stuff.
If they're letting you play as the Taliban in the campaign, that's a problem. Especially if it tries to be somewhat sympathetic.
I don't see how that is problematic. In fact, I wish someone would do that.
It kind of makes sense for even like, WWII. Playing as a German soldier (NOT a card carrying Nazi soldier) who is sympathetic as a human being can be good story telling and historical reference.
Playing a suicide bomber in the streets of the middle east? There's a lot less sympathetic human and a lot more crazy ass fundamentalist.
Yes, and? I read the plot synopsis. I have no real sympathy for a suicide bomber. All of those actions are instant immature knee jerk reactions to bad things. So in that story, the guy's dad tries to work with the Israelis (The wiki doesn't say in what capacity) and the son, angry that his own government executed his father for collaboration, throws on a bomb and goes off to blow up some civilians?
There are no sympathetic characters there. Just an attempt to show how pointless and sad this whole thing is. Maybe the wiki summary isn't doing it justice, but the guy wants to kill people unrelated to his father's death, to somehow avenge his father? It's sad that the kid is indoctrinated so hard, but it's still his decision to kill civilians.
Also, that would make a terrible terrible video game. I mean if someone wants to make it, I will not only not oppose it, I'll encourage it based on the idea of free speech. But it's probably going to suck and no one will play it. So there's that.
Wasn't there a game company who tried releasing missions based on real conflicts as they happen?
I know they released one based on Fallujah.
It's called Kuma Wars. Apparently they even made a sequel using the Source engine. Here's a news story talking about it's popularity in Iraq.
The programming is the work of New York-based Kuma Reality Games, which specializes in re-creating battles based on actual news events. Its motto is candid: "In a world being torn apart by international conflict, one thing is on everyone's mind as they finish watching the nightly news: 'Man, this would make a great game.'
um yeah...
I actually reviewed Kuma: War for eToychest a while back.
It was absolutely freaking terrible. Civilians had the same animations as soldiers, but if you shot ONE you lost. So on terrible murky graphics, from 300 feet away, a cluster of dudes and civilians would all raise their arms at you and look like they were shooting. And just stand in the middle of the road. Not realistic, just shit. Trust me, even if it is reenacting a "real battle" it won't look or feel anything like it. Kuma: War is closer to playing laser tag at putt putt than simulating actual fights.
Or if it's more about sharing the story of the men who were there.
Because to every single vet I know (excluding my uncle who was an army ranger in vietnam and never ever talks about it) is big on sharing the stories. They want you to know. They want you to understand, even just a little. You can't ever have been there, but it's probably the most significant point in their lives.
Video Games as a storytelling medium is something I would be interested in.
In fact, that'd be the only reason I'd be interested in a game like this, probably. I'm not much in to military shooters, and something that was about the events of Fallujah (one of my friends was there) that is told through the eyes of those soldiers, I would like to see it presented in an interactive medium.
A few flight simulators (Red Baron, Rise of Flight). A FPS or two that were mostly based on alternate history. There was one sidescrolling Flash game that was basically you taking a squad and going from trench to trench and dying to machine gun fire. It's not a "sexy" war, so not many people have done much with it that's been fun except for the flight sims.
If I was home right now, I would scan and post the page on the Afghan Mujahadeen (i.e. Taliban) from my late-80s "Fighting Forces of the World" book, where they are described as "courageous", "resourceful" and I believe "stalwart" in opposing commie Soviet invasion of their country.
Just like in Rambo III !
I was going to say The Living Daylights, but same idea.
Or Charlie Wilson's War (which came out after 9/11).
If I was home right now, I would scan and post the page on the Afghan Mujahadeen (i.e. Taliban) from my late-80s "Fighting Forces of the World" book, where they are described as "courageous", "resourceful" and I believe "stalwart" in opposing commie Soviet invasion of their country.
Just like in Rambo III !
I was going to say The Living Daylights, but same idea.
Or Charlie Wilson's War (which came out after 9/11).
No dammit too depressing!
We're talking the 80's version of Afghanistan.
Movie exhibits severe lack of killing russians with big ass knives and arrows.
If I was home right now, I would scan and post the page on the Afghan Mujahadeen (i.e. Taliban) from my late-80s "Fighting Forces of the World" book, where they are described as "courageous", "resourceful" and I believe "stalwart" in opposing commie Soviet invasion of their country.
Just like in Rambo III !
I was going to say The Living Daylights, but same idea.
Or Charlie Wilson's War (which came out after 9/11).
No dammit too depressing!
We're talking the 80's version of Afghanistan.
Movie exhibits severe lack of killing russians with big ass knives and arrows.
Not even tanks being driven into helicopters!
Movie exhibits abundance of Tom Hanks being funny in a folksy manner, but severe lack of reality or awareness of the actual location of Afghanistan in said time period.
Also, lack of tanks being driven into helicopters and rippling Italian muscles.
Or if it's more about sharing the story of the men who were there.
Because to every single vet I know (excluding my uncle who was an army ranger in vietnam and never ever talks about it) is big on sharing the stories. They want you to know. They want you to understand, even just a little. You can't ever have been there, but it's probably the most significant point in their lives.
Video Games as a storytelling medium is something I would be interested in.
In fact, that'd be the only reason I'd be interested in a game like this, probably. I'm not much in to military shooters, and something that was about the events of Fallujah (one of my friends was there) that is told through the eyes of those soldiers, I would like to see it presented in an interactive medium.
I'm pretty sure Kuma wanted to tell the soldier's stories through game play- that's why they have the videos in the beginning.
A few flight simulators (Red Baron, Rise of Flight). A FPS or two that were mostly based on alternate history. There was one sidescrolling Flash game that was basically you taking a squad and going from trench to trench and dying to machine gun fire. It's not a "sexy" war, so not many people have done much with it that's been fun except for the flight sims.
That's odd. You'd think that the tight trenches, deadly open areas, unforeseen dangers, slow weaponry, and black tunnels out into the middle of No Man's Land would make a perfect adaption for a horror engine.
Wasn't there a game company who tried releasing missions based on real conflicts as they happen?
I know they released one based on Fallujah.
It's called Kuma Wars. Apparently they even made a sequel using the Source engine. Here's a news story talking about it's popularity in Iraq.
The programming is the work of New York-based Kuma Reality Games, which specializes in re-creating battles based on actual news events. Its motto is candid: "In a world being torn apart by international conflict, one thing is on everyone's mind as they finish watching the nightly news: 'Man, this would make a great game.'
um yeah...
I actually reviewed Kuma: War for eToychest a while back.
It was absolutely freaking terrible. Civilians had the same animations as soldiers, but if you shot ONE you lost. So on terrible murky graphics, from 300 feet away, a cluster of dudes and civilians would all raise their arms at you and look like they were shooting. And just stand in the middle of the road. Not realistic, just shit. Trust me, even if it is reenacting a "real battle" it won't look or feel anything like it. Kuma: War is closer to playing laser tag at putt putt than simulating actual fights.
You immediately lose if you shoot a civilian? I'd think the best way to realisticly handle it would be to give no indication whatsoever when you kill civilians, unless you happen to come across a corpse that you apparently created and notice that's unarmed. You'd only find out after the mission is complete what your real kill count was, including how many of them were civilians.
For extra realism, the figure could be inaccurate, or be partially or completely based on your own reports of what happened. Admit that you killed civilians and you'll have to face whatever consequences come from that, but cover them up and get caught, and the consequences will be far worse.
Or if it's more about sharing the story of the men who were there.
Because to every single vet I know (excluding my uncle who was an army ranger in vietnam and never ever talks about it) is big on sharing the stories. They want you to know. They want you to understand, even just a little. You can't ever have been there, but it's probably the most significant point in their lives.
Video Games as a storytelling medium is something I would be interested in.
In fact, that'd be the only reason I'd be interested in a game like this, probably. I'm not much in to military shooters, and something that was about the events of Fallujah (one of my friends was there) that is told through the eyes of those soldiers, I would like to see it presented in an interactive medium.
I'm pretty sure Kuma wanted to tell the soldier's stories through game play- that's why they have the videos in the beginning.
It sounds like they did not do a good job.
I hope Six Days In Fallujah could actually deliver on such an idea.
If so, it would actually get me to play a military shooter.
You immediately lose if you shoot a civilian? I'd think the best way to realisticly handle it would be to give no indication whatsoever when you kill civilians, unless you happen to come across a corpse that you apparently created and notice that's unarmed. You'd only find out after the mission is complete what your real kill count was, including how many of them were civilians.
For extra realism, the figure could be inaccurate, or be partially or completely based on your own reports of what happened. Admit that you killed civilians and you'll have to face whatever consequences come from that, but cover them up and get caught, and the consequences will be far worse.
There was something that a buddy of mine (discharged for PTSD... very sad) told me about on one of the few occasions I've seen him since he came home. He ended up in urban warfare doing house to house sweeps. Not Fallujah, though. It was basically something like:
"Say you get into a situation where you are pursuing a guy who was shooting at you and was trying to escape. Often, that guy will start taking side streets, alleys, the back parts of people's property and that kinda thing so that he can lose you. And it's night.
Now... civilians are worried about these guys too. They might have a gun to defend themselves. They're worried one of these guys might bust into their house or something. You take a corner and a guy is standing there with a gun, and now you've got a potentially deadly split second decision. You might shoot, he might shoot, you both might shoot. Hopefully, you both recognize that you're kinda on the same side, and then he points you in the direction where the guy you were chasing was running. That was so fucked up.
That was the worst part of my tour."
The fear that you might kill a civilian is a real thing. I've yet to meet a vet who was heartless to the point that he didn't care about whether or not he might've hurt the wrong person in a confusing situation. Translating that into a game mechanic might be difficult, but might also be an important thing to convey.
If the Taliban weren't such horrid, evil, cocksuckers I might actually care.
This I take exception to, as a couple of years before the September 11th attacks and the whole war on terror there was a part of the sunday times dedicated to what the hell is happening in Afganistan, the most significant part of which covered the story (along with interviews etc) of the original rise of the Taliban and Mullah Omar. It's honestly no surprise that things ended up where they did - the whole movement is born out of a truly horrific incident that should it have form the plot of an action film would have not caused anyone to bat an eyelid (we're talking new A-team's "Go on...murder some guys/ aren't you happy you finally renounced peace and killed a guy?" levels)
Basically the future head of the Taliban is a reclusive scholar/priest in some out of the way village. A warlord takes over and the villagers beg for him to intervene and he refuses up until two teenage girls get kidnapped. Finally deciding he has had enough he goes up to the warlords compound and begs for the girl's return, afterwhich the warlord agrees. However the next day, the corpses of the girls (having being previous raped) are crucified outside of the village.
Having realised that this crosses the line beyond which any reasonable person can accept, Mullah Omar leads the village and his students against the warlord and his men, killing them all. On hearing of this, members of nearby towns and villages send people to request aid and the cycle repeats itself.
This is why demonisation of the enemy is so dangerous, sure the Nazi's seem ridiculous B movie villains now, which enables games designers to use them as enemies interchangeably with space aliens and mutants. However with something in living memory, there's going to be a lot of people who remember why the movement started in the first place, and whilst they may not agree (or violently oppose) what is happening now are going to be horrified at the disrespect paid by those who know nothing about what happened to those whose death's launched this thing.
Ten or so years ago, two girls were kidnapped, raped and murdered before having their naked bodies crucified to teach their parents a lesson about asking for help. Because of that, we can now turn those parents into the villains of the next generations Indiana Jones...
That's "hating our freedom's" territory at its very worse.
[edit] That said, something that properly conveys the situation and trys to reflect the experiences of those involved in it I've no problem with. Casting the Taliban as the antagonists is one thing (and may even help raise the basic understanding of what the fuck is going on and highlight problems/solutions enough to actually do something), it's the Frank Milllar having Batman punch out Osama stuff that really riles me up.
I find it funny how no one batted an eyelid at playing as the Iraqi republican guard in the first modernwarfare game. I mean I know they never called the country Iraq and I know they called the enemy force "opfor" but come on...
Playing as brown sandy people shooting at US marines is cool but as soon as we put a real world name to those people it's wrong?
It comes down to the same thing that happens everytime someone gets sensitive about a form of creative media. Do you believe people have the right to choose for themselves what they're exposed to or do you believe because you don't like it no one should play it? If it's the latter then fine, I'll see you in court for you to defend your persicution of my rights. If it's the former then what are we arguing about? Just don't play it.
It should also be noted, most of the "Taliban's" "soldiers" are just Afghan civilians with shattered livelihoods who see no other options. I'm not contesting that there's some brutal and evil fucks that make up their ranks, but what the media call the Taliban is actually an umbrella covering multiple groups - all our enemies certainly, but not all worth demonizing.
The role of people who have become professional solders (or mercenaries, but that word seems kinda loaded) is underestimated I think.
I believe the proper term is 'civilian contractor'.
Yeah I was talking about the freelance dudes.
The 'Security Services' racket (both foreign and local) is yet another messed up thing.
Small private armies... you might hire them to protect your convoy one week, and the next week someone else might hire them to kill you and take your stuff.
Yikes.
My info source on the above post was a broadcast on NPR, so... accuracy might vary.
I doubt most mercs work that way. Strikes me as very bad business practice, I mean you could kiss goodbye to repeat custom. Plus if people get wind of the fact you turn on your employers with alarming regularity you could find yourself getting killed just to get you out the equation.
Nah my guess is they work like arms dealers. "Pick a side".
a person who doesn't particularly care who hires them and shoots at whomever they're told.... well i just don't know what else to call that but someone who's profession (either because he's good at it, likes it, or has no other job prospects) is soldiering, or being a 'mercenary'.
the take-take home message from this reporter? fighting in afghanistan and pakistan very likely involves many people who are not fighting on an idealogical basis, and people ought to consider that it's not entirely about muslim ideology.
a person who doesn't particularly care who hires them and shoots at whomever they're told.... well i just don't know what else to call that but someone who's profession (either because he's good at it, likes it, or has no other job prospects) is soldiering, or being a 'mercenary'.
the take-take home message from this reporter? fighting in afghanistan and pakistan very likely involves many people who are not fighting on an idealogical basis, and people ought to consider that it's not entirely about muslim ideology.
Not to drag this on but you're going to have to cite this, because you're not being very specific whether you're talking about actual professionals in the field (ie typically American or European mercenaries) or local ragtag militia sorts
a person who doesn't particularly care who hires them and shoots at whomever they're told.... well i just don't know what else to call that but someone who's profession (either because he's good at it, likes it, or has no other job prospects) is soldiering, or being a 'mercenary'.
the take-take home message from this reporter? fighting in afghanistan and pakistan very likely involves many people who are not fighting on an idealogical basis, and people ought to consider that it's not entirely about muslim ideology.
Not to drag this on but you're going to have to cite this, because you're not being very specific whether you're talking about actual professionals in the field (ie typically American or European mercenaries) or local ragtag militia sorts
i think i said locals before, didn't i? maybe it got bottom-paged.
yeah, these were guys native to the area.
like i said (you mighta not seen that either) i will try to find the article or book where i read that.
A few flight simulators (Red Baron, Rise of Flight). A FPS or two that were mostly based on alternate history. There was one sidescrolling Flash game that was basically you taking a squad and going from trench to trench and dying to machine gun fire. It's not a "sexy" war, so not many people have done much with it that's been fun except for the flight sims.
That's odd. You'd think that the tight trenches, deadly open areas, unforeseen dangers, slow weaponry, and black tunnels out into the middle of No Man's Land would make a perfect adaption for a horror engine.
It might make a good adventure game in the old Sierra mold. You click to walk out of the barracks and you die for no apparent reason. You click on a trench and you die for no apparent reason. You forgot to bring something from the start of the game (a helmet) and you die 10 minutes later for no apparent reason.
I haven't closely followed COD Black Ops development much, but with my only knowledge of it at this point being that its about Cold War era black ops missions (i.e. the Vietnam we've seen in the trailer), I wouldn't be that surprised to see a level where you are a black ops soldier in Afghanistan in the early '80's fighting alongside the Mujahideen against the Russians.
Maybe they've released a level list or something I missed that disproves that though.
I haven't closely followed COD Black Ops development much, but with my only knowledge of it at this point being that its about Cold War era black ops missions (i.e. the Vietnam we've seen in the trailer), I wouldn't be that surprised to see a level where you are a black ops soldier in Afghanistan in the early '80's fighting alongside the Mujahideen against the Russians.
Maybe they've released a level list or something I missed that disproves that though.
Maybe you do a mission supporting them against the Russians, and then there's a flash forward and you're leading an operation against the same guys you were friends with 20 years before. Bonus points if they aren't carboard cutouts and you really get to know them beyond "crazy guy that screams and has an ak47"
Nobody complains that, say, in any of the Sid Meier games you can build-up a totally fascist, genocidal empire and rampage across the Earth (or alpha centauri, if you prefer the sci fi shenanigans). Nobody minds that you can pick up a GTA game and gleefully mow down as many unarmed citizens and police officers as you like (...well, nobody except Jack Thompson. Anyone care to be that guy's apologist? :P ).
Someone makes a game where you can be a Taliban fighter and asplode Coaliton troops though, and OMGWTF SOOOO BUTTHURT RITE NOW!!!
People need to grow-up.
These scenarios are a bit different.
ChillyWilly on
PAFC Top 10 Finisher in Seasons 1 and 3. 2nd in Seasons 4 and 5. Final 4 in Season 6.
Posts
It's called Kuma Wars. Apparently they even made a sequel using the Source engine. Here's a news story talking about it's popularity in Iraq.
um yeah...
Looking for a Hardcore Fantasy Extraction Shooter? - Dark and Darker
Watch Paradise Now.
I fail to see why it's so important on what enemy is in a video game when you're playing a real world country's military. In COD4: MW or MW2, the enemy may have been fictionalize but the friendlies on the screen where not. Why is it then acceptable for you to play as some fictional Russian ultra-nationalist's or some fictional revolutionary Middle Eastern brown people, and shoot at USMC Recon, US Army Rangers, and British SAS? Those are all real organizations, but it's fine for those representations to die on screen?
Hell toss in a level where you play a Taliban sniper for all I care. The whole thing is fictionalized, and if you can't separate what is fact from fiction, maybe you shouldn't be playing video games in the first place.
And no video game has come close to what real war is like for the sole reason that there is no emotional attachment at all to anything in the game. You don't care much if your character dies, or if their buddies die, etc... it means nothing to you other than an inconvenience. There's no fear for, not just your life, but the people around you. It's like lighting a straw on fire and sucking through it to imitate a cigarette. It's close, maybe in a way, but it's missing all of the important stuff.
Video games aren't even close to real war.
Yes, and? I read the plot synopsis. I have no real sympathy for a suicide bomber. All of those actions are instant immature knee jerk reactions to bad things. So in that story, the guy's dad tries to work with the Israelis (The wiki doesn't say in what capacity) and the son, angry that his own government executed his father for collaboration, throws on a bomb and goes off to blow up some civilians?
There are no sympathetic characters there. Just an attempt to show how pointless and sad this whole thing is. Maybe the wiki summary isn't doing it justice, but the guy wants to kill people unrelated to his father's death, to somehow avenge his father? It's sad that the kid is indoctrinated so hard, but it's still his decision to kill civilians.
Also, that would make a terrible terrible video game. I mean if someone wants to make it, I will not only not oppose it, I'll encourage it based on the idea of free speech. But it's probably going to suck and no one will play it. So there's that.
I actually reviewed Kuma: War for eToychest a while back.
It was absolutely freaking terrible. Civilians had the same animations as soldiers, but if you shot ONE you lost. So on terrible murky graphics, from 300 feet away, a cluster of dudes and civilians would all raise their arms at you and look like they were shooting. And just stand in the middle of the road. Not realistic, just shit. Trust me, even if it is reenacting a "real battle" it won't look or feel anything like it. Kuma: War is closer to playing laser tag at putt putt than simulating actual fights.
I wonder if that's really the idea.
Or if it's more about sharing the story of the men who were there.
Because to every single vet I know (excluding my uncle who was an army ranger in vietnam and never ever talks about it) is big on sharing the stories. They want you to know. They want you to understand, even just a little. You can't ever have been there, but it's probably the most significant point in their lives.
Video Games as a storytelling medium is something I would be interested in.
In fact, that'd be the only reason I'd be interested in a game like this, probably. I'm not much in to military shooters, and something that was about the events of Fallujah (one of my friends was there) that is told through the eyes of those soldiers, I would like to see it presented in an interactive medium.
Or Charlie Wilson's War (which came out after 9/11).
No dammit too depressing!
We're talking the 80's version of Afghanistan.
Movie exhibits severe lack of killing russians with big ass knives and arrows.
Not even tanks being driven into helicopters!
Movie exhibits abundance of Tom Hanks being funny in a folksy manner, but severe lack of reality or awareness of the actual location of Afghanistan in said time period.
Also, lack of tanks being driven into helicopters and rippling Italian muscles.
I'm pretty sure Kuma wanted to tell the soldier's stories through game play- that's why they have the videos in the beginning.
That's odd. You'd think that the tight trenches, deadly open areas, unforeseen dangers, slow weaponry, and black tunnels out into the middle of No Man's Land would make a perfect adaption for a horror engine.
You immediately lose if you shoot a civilian? I'd think the best way to realisticly handle it would be to give no indication whatsoever when you kill civilians, unless you happen to come across a corpse that you apparently created and notice that's unarmed. You'd only find out after the mission is complete what your real kill count was, including how many of them were civilians.
For extra realism, the figure could be inaccurate, or be partially or completely based on your own reports of what happened. Admit that you killed civilians and you'll have to face whatever consequences come from that, but cover them up and get caught, and the consequences will be far worse.
It sounds like they did not do a good job.
I hope Six Days In Fallujah could actually deliver on such an idea.
If so, it would actually get me to play a military shooter.
There was something that a buddy of mine (discharged for PTSD... very sad) told me about on one of the few occasions I've seen him since he came home. He ended up in urban warfare doing house to house sweeps. Not Fallujah, though. It was basically something like:
"Say you get into a situation where you are pursuing a guy who was shooting at you and was trying to escape. Often, that guy will start taking side streets, alleys, the back parts of people's property and that kinda thing so that he can lose you. And it's night.
Now... civilians are worried about these guys too. They might have a gun to defend themselves. They're worried one of these guys might bust into their house or something. You take a corner and a guy is standing there with a gun, and now you've got a potentially deadly split second decision. You might shoot, he might shoot, you both might shoot. Hopefully, you both recognize that you're kinda on the same side, and then he points you in the direction where the guy you were chasing was running. That was so fucked up.
That was the worst part of my tour."
The fear that you might kill a civilian is a real thing. I've yet to meet a vet who was heartless to the point that he didn't care about whether or not he might've hurt the wrong person in a confusing situation. Translating that into a game mechanic might be difficult, but might also be an important thing to convey.
This I take exception to, as a couple of years before the September 11th attacks and the whole war on terror there was a part of the sunday times dedicated to what the hell is happening in Afganistan, the most significant part of which covered the story (along with interviews etc) of the original rise of the Taliban and Mullah Omar. It's honestly no surprise that things ended up where they did - the whole movement is born out of a truly horrific incident that should it have form the plot of an action film would have not caused anyone to bat an eyelid (we're talking new A-team's "Go on...murder some guys/ aren't you happy you finally renounced peace and killed a guy?" levels)
Basically the future head of the Taliban is a reclusive scholar/priest in some out of the way village. A warlord takes over and the villagers beg for him to intervene and he refuses up until two teenage girls get kidnapped. Finally deciding he has had enough he goes up to the warlords compound and begs for the girl's return, afterwhich the warlord agrees. However the next day, the corpses of the girls (having being previous raped) are crucified outside of the village.
Having realised that this crosses the line beyond which any reasonable person can accept, Mullah Omar leads the village and his students against the warlord and his men, killing them all. On hearing of this, members of nearby towns and villages send people to request aid and the cycle repeats itself.
This is why demonisation of the enemy is so dangerous, sure the Nazi's seem ridiculous B movie villains now, which enables games designers to use them as enemies interchangeably with space aliens and mutants. However with something in living memory, there's going to be a lot of people who remember why the movement started in the first place, and whilst they may not agree (or violently oppose) what is happening now are going to be horrified at the disrespect paid by those who know nothing about what happened to those whose death's launched this thing.
Ten or so years ago, two girls were kidnapped, raped and murdered before having their naked bodies crucified to teach their parents a lesson about asking for help. Because of that, we can now turn those parents into the villains of the next generations Indiana Jones...
That's "hating our freedom's" territory at its very worse.
[edit] That said, something that properly conveys the situation and trys to reflect the experiences of those involved in it I've no problem with. Casting the Taliban as the antagonists is one thing (and may even help raise the basic understanding of what the fuck is going on and highlight problems/solutions enough to actually do something), it's the Frank Milllar having Batman punch out Osama stuff that really riles me up.
There should be an 'All Quiet on the Western Front' game.
Right shoulder to render and be rendered wasteland.
Left analog to consider the fact that we are not related. We are not related.
On the black screen
Playing as brown sandy people shooting at US marines is cool but as soon as we put a real world name to those people it's wrong?
It comes down to the same thing that happens everytime someone gets sensitive about a form of creative media. Do you believe people have the right to choose for themselves what they're exposed to or do you believe because you don't like it no one should play it? If it's the latter then fine, I'll see you in court for you to defend your persicution of my rights. If it's the former then what are we arguing about? Just don't play it.
I remember reading an account of a reporter who ran into the same guy on both sides of the conflict. Exchange was similar to:
"Don't they care that you were with the other guys two weeks ago?"
"No. They only care that I'm shooting at their targets now."
"Well why did you switch sides?"
"They're paying more."
I believe the proper term is 'civilian contractor'.
Yeah I was talking about the freelance dudes.
The 'Security Services' racket (both foreign and local) is yet another messed up thing.
Small private armies... you might hire them to protect your convoy one week, and the next week someone else might hire them to kill you and take your stuff.
Yikes.
My info source on the above post was a broadcast on NPR, so... accuracy might vary.
you're going to have to cite this
There are contractors at work in both Afghanistan and Iraq, but they don't work like this
Unless you're referring to local warlords, in which case they are neither professional soldiers nor mercenaries
these would be locals
not contractors
Nah my guess is they work like arms dealers. "Pick a side".
i'll have to try to find that article
Yea a contractor isn't going to openly work for the taliban unless they don't plan on ever coming home
yes. not contractors. i don't think i said contractors.
Contractor is the legal term for mercenary
Mercenary has negative connotations
a person who doesn't particularly care who hires them and shoots at whomever they're told.... well i just don't know what else to call that but someone who's profession (either because he's good at it, likes it, or has no other job prospects) is soldiering, or being a 'mercenary'.
the take-take home message from this reporter? fighting in afghanistan and pakistan very likely involves many people who are not fighting on an idealogical basis, and people ought to consider that it's not entirely about muslim ideology.
Not to drag this on but you're going to have to cite this, because you're not being very specific whether you're talking about actual professionals in the field (ie typically American or European mercenaries) or local ragtag militia sorts
i think i said locals before, didn't i? maybe it got bottom-paged.
yeah, these were guys native to the area.
like i said (you mighta not seen that either) i will try to find the article or book where i read that.
No shit. I don't care how much money the Taliban pays. I'm staying on the side with the laser guided bombs.
It might make a good adventure game in the old Sierra mold. You click to walk out of the barracks and you die for no apparent reason. You click on a trench and you die for no apparent reason. You forgot to bring something from the start of the game (a helmet) and you die 10 minutes later for no apparent reason.
Maybe they've released a level list or something I missed that disproves that though.
Maybe you do a mission supporting them against the Russians, and then there's a flash forward and you're leading an operation against the same guys you were friends with 20 years before. Bonus points if they aren't carboard cutouts and you really get to know them beyond "crazy guy that screams and has an ak47"
These scenarios are a bit different.