Ignoring the thread derailment going on here, there are some interesting issues.
This seems to touch people on several levels:
* is this likely to be a game that I personally want to play?
* is this game likely to contribute significantly to intelligent discourse about the war?
* is this game likely to be a commercial success, such that an established game publisher should fund the game?
* is this game likely to be socially damaging without contributing anything significant, such that the game should be censored, or the developers should otherwise be stopped from releasing this game?
So many games are treated as interactive entertainment products. I've quoted these guys in another thread, but:
So what is art? My take on it is simple. Media provide information. Entertainment provides comforting, simplistic information. And art provides challenging information, stuff that you have to think about in order to absorb. That's it.
If we assume that big-budget games can ONLY be created as entertainment, that the new product development process must necessarily strip away all of the challenging, questionable content and distill the experience into something that comforts and reinforces a specific viewpoint, then we ignore our medium's potential for artistic expression.
I have faith these guys are trying to do something different. I think it's certainly possible this game can present a nuanced situation, let you experience part of it, and leave you wondering what story you are actually helping to write. I believe that games don't have to tell entertaining stories -- they can leave the player with challenging questions about what they just took part in.
Ever read a book where the ending leaves you confused about who was really right and who was really wrong? Ever feel like you want the author to write just one more chapter, because seeing what happens next would tie up a complicated plot into a neat package, making it clear where the lines of right and wrong are drawn -- but the author wanted to leave you pondering all the possibilities?
Games can do that too. They don't have to be preachy.
mspencer on
MEMBER OF THE PARANOIA GM GUILD
XBL Michael Spencer || Wii 6007 6812 1605 7315 || PSN MichaelSpencerJr || Steam Michael_Spencer || Ham NOØK QRZ || My last known GPS coordinates: FindU or APRS.fi (Car antenna feed line busted -- no ham radio for me X__X )
Ever read a book where the ending leaves you confused about who was really right and who was really wrong? Ever feel like you want the author to write just one more chapter, because seeing what happens next would tie up a complicated plot into a neat package, making it clear where the lines of right and wrong are drawn -- but the author wanted to leave you pondering all the possibilities?
Games can do that too. They don't have to be preachy.
Haha, more derailment, but anyone here finish The Dark Tower by Stephen King? Hoo boy I'm glad I continued past his warning and finished the book but I hear some people were pretty upset with how it ended.
* is this game likely to contribute significantly to intelligent discourse about the war?
I dunno. The first problem is that in real life, most soldiers kill one or two enemy fighters, at tops, and suffer mental traumas about it. You can be pretty sure that player kills way more than that, and that already insults whole profession.
One player doesn't necessarily need to be one soldier though.
mspencer on
MEMBER OF THE PARANOIA GM GUILD
XBL Michael Spencer || Wii 6007 6812 1605 7315 || PSN MichaelSpencerJr || Steam Michael_Spencer || Ham NOØK QRZ || My last known GPS coordinates: FindU or APRS.fi (Car antenna feed line busted -- no ham radio for me X__X )
* is this game likely to contribute significantly to intelligent discourse about the war?
I dunno. The first problem is that in real life, most soldiers kill one or two enemy fighters, at tops, and suffer mental traumas about it. You can be pretty sure that player kills way more than that, and that already insults whole profession.
Also in real life, soldiers can't take 25 bullets then sit behind a wall and have their health regenerate.
Seems to me this game became a victim of it's own overblown hype.
Additionally, since this game is being designed using input from real soldiers, why are we assuming the chief game mechanics used by this game will be the "aim at bad guys" and "take cover" mechanics we've seen in so many other games?
There's so much more to a soldier's life, isn't there? A game about soldiering -- not about being an action hero -- seems like it would include more than aiming and covering.
mspencer on
MEMBER OF THE PARANOIA GM GUILD
XBL Michael Spencer || Wii 6007 6812 1605 7315 || PSN MichaelSpencerJr || Steam Michael_Spencer || Ham NOØK QRZ || My last known GPS coordinates: FindU or APRS.fi (Car antenna feed line busted -- no ham radio for me X__X )
Additionally, since this game is being designed using input from real soldiers, why are we assuming the chief game mechanics used by this game will be the "aim at bad guys" and "take cover" mechanics we've seen in so many other games?
Because "creative input" is usually just PR-bullshit. Sure, Medal of Honor: Rising Sun had WWII veterans giving advice, but see how it turned out.
There's so much more to a soldier's life, isn't there? A game about soldiering -- not about being an action hero -- seems like it would include more than aiming and covering.
Sure, there is lot to the soldier's life, but it doesn't make good game. We can talk always about pushing boundaries, but to be good videogame, the game needs to also be gamey. Otherwise, what's the point?
Additionally, since this game is being designed using input from real soldiers, why are we assuming the chief game mechanics used by this game will be the "aim at bad guys" and "take cover" mechanics we've seen in so many other games?
Because "creative input" is usually just PR-bullshit. Sure, Medal of Honor: Rising Sun had WWII veterans giving advice, but see how it turned out.
There's so much more to a soldier's life, isn't there? A game about soldiering -- not about being an action hero -- seems like it would include more than aiming and covering.
Sure, there is lot to the soldier's life, but it doesn't make good game. We can talk always about pushing boundaries, but to be good videogame, the game needs to also be gamey. Otherwise, what's the point?
Yeah basically. I don't think anyone is saying that it can't be done. Just that this is not what it was hyped up to be.
Why doesn't it make a good game? I'm kinda trying to force you to think about what you haven't considered by asking this, but: could you share your thought process, about which game mechanics you've considered and rejected? Which parts of a soldier's life that don't involve direct engagement with enemies have you considered to be unsuitable for a game? Are you confident enough that you've considered all of them?
I'm not asking you to follow that thought all the way to an implementation, a target game mechanic that's fun to play.
Soldiers also do public service work, meet with local leaders, mediate disputes, make friends with locals. Sometimes there is violence. When? You'll never know. Maybe never. You may need to enforce curfew, seize illegal weapons, question suspects, comfort the bereaved as best you can, perhaps even tend to fallen comrades and secure their weapons so they cannot be used by enemies or found by local children.
Most of these can be implemented as a game mechanic. If tuning and balancing is done well, presenting the player with challenges at the very edge of their ability, the game mechanics might even be fun, and might layer onto each other in interesting and innovative ways. If the developer takes the high road and doesn't force a moral agenda upon the player, they might even achieve the artistic voice these contributing soldiers intend.
If we handle the points of view of many soldiers, perhaps using many small story arcs which surround the brief moments of terror that punctuate the otherwise-mundane lives of these soldiers, then these story arcs can build upon each other. The fifth soldier you play in the story might be doomed to die no matter what you do, but that soldier's actions can have consequences which impact the rest of the game.
All of this is what is possible, albeit unlikely.
It's totally fair to talk about what is probable. We know what our industry finds easy and what it finds difficult to produce.
Dismissing these ideas as unlikely speaks to the "is this likely to be a game I want to play?" discussion.
Defending these ideas as unlikely but possible speaks to the "is this game likely to be socially damaging without contributing anything significant, such that the game should be censored?" discussion.
mspencer on
MEMBER OF THE PARANOIA GM GUILD
XBL Michael Spencer || Wii 6007 6812 1605 7315 || PSN MichaelSpencerJr || Steam Michael_Spencer || Ham NOØK QRZ || My last known GPS coordinates: FindU or APRS.fi (Car antenna feed line busted -- no ham radio for me X__X )
Honestly I'm not sure how much of what they say is true and how much is bullshit
A lot of it sounds like it's trying to drum up hype or anticipation for a game that is just gonna be a Modern Warfare clone or somesuch
I mean, they talked to Iraqis involved in the conflict as well? What, were they civilians or army? Because they sure as shit weren't insurgents. And did they know what they were doing? Making a video game of the war? Because I doubt they'd participate if they knew
Unless they got paid gobs of money I guess, I really don't know
I get the same idea about the hype. There is nothing wrong with a video game tackling the realities of a recent war. Video games could be such a perfect medium to relay the tough decisions one has to make during a battle and that one can make wrong decisions unwillingly in the heat of battle. They are trying to pander this game that way, but from everything I've seen and heard the game is much more of a Gears of War clone than anything else. If US marines can regenerate health after taking a hail of bullets, how does that convey the clear and present danger of insurgent ambushed. Destructible environments could also really have emphasized the fact that you need to think twice about what you blow up to prevent the unnecessary death of civilians, but instead it seems to boil down to a bullet point on the back of the box "- Destroy ANYTHING in the environment!!".
I think it could have been a great attempt at displaying the down and ugly sides of this otherwise "sterile" war as we have it seen portrayed on television, but instead they are retreading old ground, back with bold marketing claims of "realism". If you try to sell realism and soldiers regenerate health and don't have to worry about whom they shoot, I am frankly a bit offended by your game.
Why doesn't it make a good game? I'm kinda trying to force you to think about what you haven't considered by asking this, but: could you share your thought process, about which game mechanics you've considered and rejected?
After long thinking, I have came to conclusion that videogames are indeed art with their own artistic sensibilites and values. These, however, are completely different from books or films. For videogame, its artistic values come mainly from execution and the flow. For example, in Super Mario Bros, artistic values come from sharp controls, how each block in each level is place impeccably, and how it achieves thrills in the player.
Videogames are games foremost, but I think that many developers are missing this point. They try to emulate films and write "complex" stories (and fail at that miserably). Good stories tend to be talky, well paced, and meaningful. In the videogames, story and its pacing is compromised because you need to have unnecessary action scenes for the player to play. Metal Gear Solid, for example, has some ridiculous plot twists only to give player something to do, not to serve story per se. And these action scenes need to be somehow satisfying for the player. Many scenes you described would make good story, but not good game.
But can't you write story first, the game second? Certainly, but why we should try to shoehorn this into videogame, when there is already far better mediums for telling it? Doing something for just sake of it is pointless. I think that we should celebrate our medium's gamenes, and build games using medium's own strengths, not by imitating other mediums.
Soldiers also do public service work, meet with local leaders, mediate disputes, make friends with locals. Sometimes there is violence. When? You'll never know. Maybe never. You may need to enforce curfew, seize illegal weapons, question suspects, comfort the bereaved as best you can, perhaps even tend to fallen comrades and secure their weapons so they cannot be used by enemies or found by local children.
A series based around negotiating? Would never work.
In all seriousness...
A game based more around the mundane aspects of a soldier's life might work. However, there would be a number of obstacles. Leaving aside the lack of combat normally expected in games involving the military, there is the problem of how to properly handle dialog, which would be crucial to implementing things like negotiating, mediating, or otherwise having peaceful contact with other characters.
mspencer - Wasn't the first Full Spectrum Warrior (at least the military version) like that? i.e. It was more to do with setting up patrols, maintaining roadblocks, etc, where it wasn't even certain if there would be any enemy? At least that's what I remember from a newspaper article.
mspencer - Wasn't the first Full Spectrum Warrior (at least the military version) like that? i.e. It was more to do with setting up patrols, maintaining roadblocks, etc, where it wasn't even certain if there would be any enemy? At least that's what I remember from a newspaper article.
The first Full Spectrum Warrior, while more realistic then most games was still a shooter sort of, I mean you only saw the battles side of it but it didn't really play like one it was more of a puzzle game.
Posts
Actually looks pretty good from what I saw
Completely destructable terrain was one of the big things.
Whats that? 3 enemies putting a string of machine gun fire through a door?
Thats fine
Theres a perfectly good wall behind them that we can destroy, or even punch a small hole in.
This seems to touch people on several levels:
* is this likely to be a game that I personally want to play?
* is this game likely to contribute significantly to intelligent discourse about the war?
* is this game likely to be a commercial success, such that an established game publisher should fund the game?
* is this game likely to be socially damaging without contributing anything significant, such that the game should be censored, or the developers should otherwise be stopped from releasing this game?
So many games are treated as interactive entertainment products. I've quoted these guys in another thread, but: If we assume that big-budget games can ONLY be created as entertainment, that the new product development process must necessarily strip away all of the challenging, questionable content and distill the experience into something that comforts and reinforces a specific viewpoint, then we ignore our medium's potential for artistic expression.
I have faith these guys are trying to do something different. I think it's certainly possible this game can present a nuanced situation, let you experience part of it, and leave you wondering what story you are actually helping to write. I believe that games don't have to tell entertaining stories -- they can leave the player with challenging questions about what they just took part in.
Ever read a book where the ending leaves you confused about who was really right and who was really wrong? Ever feel like you want the author to write just one more chapter, because seeing what happens next would tie up a complicated plot into a neat package, making it clear where the lines of right and wrong are drawn -- but the author wanted to leave you pondering all the possibilities?
Games can do that too. They don't have to be preachy.
XBL Michael Spencer || Wii 6007 6812 1605 7315 || PSN MichaelSpencerJr || Steam Michael_Spencer || Ham NOØK
QRZ || My last known GPS coordinates: FindU or APRS.fi (Car antenna feed line busted -- no ham radio for me X__X )
Haha, more derailment, but anyone here finish The Dark Tower by Stephen King? Hoo boy I'm glad I continued past his warning and finished the book but I hear some people were pretty upset with how it ended.
I dunno. The first problem is that in real life, most soldiers kill one or two enemy fighters, at tops, and suffer mental traumas about it. You can be pretty sure that player kills way more than that, and that already insults whole profession.
XBL Michael Spencer || Wii 6007 6812 1605 7315 || PSN MichaelSpencerJr || Steam Michael_Spencer || Ham NOØK
QRZ || My last known GPS coordinates: FindU or APRS.fi (Car antenna feed line busted -- no ham radio for me X__X )
Seems to me this game became a victim of it's own overblown hype.
There's so much more to a soldier's life, isn't there? A game about soldiering -- not about being an action hero -- seems like it would include more than aiming and covering.
XBL Michael Spencer || Wii 6007 6812 1605 7315 || PSN MichaelSpencerJr || Steam Michael_Spencer || Ham NOØK
QRZ || My last known GPS coordinates: FindU or APRS.fi (Car antenna feed line busted -- no ham radio for me X__X )
Because "creative input" is usually just PR-bullshit. Sure, Medal of Honor: Rising Sun had WWII veterans giving advice, but see how it turned out.
Sure, there is lot to the soldier's life, but it doesn't make good game. We can talk always about pushing boundaries, but to be good videogame, the game needs to also be gamey. Otherwise, what's the point?
I never asked for this!
I'm not asking you to follow that thought all the way to an implementation, a target game mechanic that's fun to play.
Soldiers also do public service work, meet with local leaders, mediate disputes, make friends with locals. Sometimes there is violence. When? You'll never know. Maybe never. You may need to enforce curfew, seize illegal weapons, question suspects, comfort the bereaved as best you can, perhaps even tend to fallen comrades and secure their weapons so they cannot be used by enemies or found by local children.
Most of these can be implemented as a game mechanic. If tuning and balancing is done well, presenting the player with challenges at the very edge of their ability, the game mechanics might even be fun, and might layer onto each other in interesting and innovative ways. If the developer takes the high road and doesn't force a moral agenda upon the player, they might even achieve the artistic voice these contributing soldiers intend.
If we handle the points of view of many soldiers, perhaps using many small story arcs which surround the brief moments of terror that punctuate the otherwise-mundane lives of these soldiers, then these story arcs can build upon each other. The fifth soldier you play in the story might be doomed to die no matter what you do, but that soldier's actions can have consequences which impact the rest of the game.
All of this is what is possible, albeit unlikely.
It's totally fair to talk about what is probable. We know what our industry finds easy and what it finds difficult to produce.
Dismissing these ideas as unlikely speaks to the "is this likely to be a game I want to play?" discussion.
Defending these ideas as unlikely but possible speaks to the "is this game likely to be socially damaging without contributing anything significant, such that the game should be censored?" discussion.
XBL Michael Spencer || Wii 6007 6812 1605 7315 || PSN MichaelSpencerJr || Steam Michael_Spencer || Ham NOØK
QRZ || My last known GPS coordinates: FindU or APRS.fi (Car antenna feed line busted -- no ham radio for me X__X )
I get the same idea about the hype. There is nothing wrong with a video game tackling the realities of a recent war. Video games could be such a perfect medium to relay the tough decisions one has to make during a battle and that one can make wrong decisions unwillingly in the heat of battle. They are trying to pander this game that way, but from everything I've seen and heard the game is much more of a Gears of War clone than anything else. If US marines can regenerate health after taking a hail of bullets, how does that convey the clear and present danger of insurgent ambushed. Destructible environments could also really have emphasized the fact that you need to think twice about what you blow up to prevent the unnecessary death of civilians, but instead it seems to boil down to a bullet point on the back of the box "- Destroy ANYTHING in the environment!!".
I think it could have been a great attempt at displaying the down and ugly sides of this otherwise "sterile" war as we have it seen portrayed on television, but instead they are retreading old ground, back with bold marketing claims of "realism". If you try to sell realism and soldiers regenerate health and don't have to worry about whom they shoot, I am frankly a bit offended by your game.
After long thinking, I have came to conclusion that videogames are indeed art with their own artistic sensibilites and values. These, however, are completely different from books or films. For videogame, its artistic values come mainly from execution and the flow. For example, in Super Mario Bros, artistic values come from sharp controls, how each block in each level is place impeccably, and how it achieves thrills in the player.
Videogames are games foremost, but I think that many developers are missing this point. They try to emulate films and write "complex" stories (and fail at that miserably). Good stories tend to be talky, well paced, and meaningful. In the videogames, story and its pacing is compromised because you need to have unnecessary action scenes for the player to play. Metal Gear Solid, for example, has some ridiculous plot twists only to give player something to do, not to serve story per se. And these action scenes need to be somehow satisfying for the player. Many scenes you described would make good story, but not good game.
But can't you write story first, the game second? Certainly, but why we should try to shoehorn this into videogame, when there is already far better mediums for telling it? Doing something for just sake of it is pointless. I think that we should celebrate our medium's gamenes, and build games using medium's own strengths, not by imitating other mediums.
I hope this makes any sense.
Operation Desert Bus?
A series based around negotiating? Would never work.
In all seriousness...
A game based more around the mundane aspects of a soldier's life might work. However, there would be a number of obstacles. Leaving aside the lack of combat normally expected in games involving the military, there is the problem of how to properly handle dialog, which would be crucial to implementing things like negotiating, mediating, or otherwise having peaceful contact with other characters.
Steam // Secret Satan
The first Full Spectrum Warrior, while more realistic then most games was still a shooter sort of, I mean you only saw the battles side of it but it didn't really play like one it was more of a puzzle game.