As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
Representing Modern War in Video Games.
desc
Goretexing to deathRegistered User regular
Goretexing to deathRegistered User regular
So, Galenblade posted a thread on "Six Days in Fallujah," a game which got a writeup in the WSJ.
Since the consensus rapidly became that this was going to turn into a D&D thread and not strictly a games-for-games sake thread, I thought I'd post this over here and let people in Galenblade's thread focus on the nuts and bolts of that game specifically, rather than a general debate.
So, there's a few different questions that this game seems to beg, although it's only the most recent game to do so:
- Is it appropriate to make games based on real world conflicts?
- Whether it is or isn't, the passage of time obviously has an impact on opinions. I'd suggest that fewer people find World War II games to be in poor taste when compared with Vietnam, which seems to be on shakier ground. Still more people would take issue with current-day wars, like the conflicts in Iraq or Afghanistan. Meanwhile, no one is yelling at the Age of Empires development team for using an abstract representation of Napoleonic war vets.
And more of a qualitative assessment:
- How plausible is it for a video game, or the entertainment industries generally, to use representations of war to convey a coherent message about the experience or worth of war? Are any high profile games likely to convey something beyond "War is hell" or "Watching your buddies die is not pleasant" while needing to be a commercially viable product?
desc on
0
Posts
As long as they don't push any racial "all brown people are terrorists" thing or whatever, it's fine with me.
1. It was a true super powers war. Very evenly matched for the most part. Last time we really had world powers duking it out. There's something more romantic about that notion whereas modern wars are far more unbalanced. People are going to get turned off by the idea of shooting villagers or desperate insurgents armed with crappy homemade weapons.
2. Compared to modern wars it's pretty hard to defend Nazi Germany. They make the easiest villains ever. Modern wars like Vietnam or Terrorists the field gets a whole lot murkier. Game designers are lazy.
This isn't your average game, its trying to give you the actual feelings of what it feels like, rather than glorifying an abstraction of war.
See how many books I've read so far in 2010
Pretty much my feeling on it.
I found this point interesting, though:
I think this is definitely where time comes into play. There are plenty of games out there now where you can shoot U.S. soldiers or shoot down U.S. planes in WWII. But playing as our opponent in an ongoing conflict? On the one hand, it's fundamentally no different. On the other....well, yeah.
a lot of books are disturbing, horrifying, hard to read, and not fun. there are many movies that are similar. people sit through them, analyze them, and - perhaps not enjoy, but are fulfilled by them. They are satisfied. Non-entertaining art is often the most capable of evoking emotion and providing some kind of valuable experience.
I think games certainly have that power, but as a medium that is so firmly rooted in profit margins, I don't think a game that really takes advantage of the medium's immersive power to produce this kind of deeper experience will come from a major studio. That kind of game wouldn't sell. The audience for games is into escapist entertainment - there's nothing wrong with that in itself, of course, but it has consequences.
I don't think this game will be much different from other third person shooters that attempt to inject morality into the experience, but I hope it is.
There is a slight... distaste... that can be entered into such games, especially if they simulate "non-combat interaction". Playing an insurgent planting IEDs in baby carts or playing a Serbian burning a village for ethnic cleansing just ain't gonna be cool, no matter how you slice it.
One intersting thing... I haven't seen a lot of games with a campaign mode (not talking about BF1942) that puts you in the "control" of a German or Japanese footsoldier. Pilot, sure (e.g. flight sims). Battlefield commander, sure (e.g. Company of Heroes). But not a first-person view of a footsoldier, carrying out the subjegation of 2.2 continents.
WWII was only "funnest" for people who didn't actually fight in WWII.
I have two minds when it comes to this. One side... I think it's appropriate to show people that war really is really nasty shit and you shouldn't be doing it. Other side... I am not sure if the actual feelings of what it really feels like to be in a war really needs to be simulated so that everyone else shares the nightmares.
The vietnam war is a stain on our national history, while WWII is possibly one of our proudest moments. Which one do you think they will make a game about?
Twitter
If the military likes playing games based on the wars they are currently fighting, who am I to say such games are disrespectful?
Granted, the treatment of the individual game matters - there's actually some very good and serious drama in the 1p COD4 game and the military attitude seems to be well captured. If the treatment was less respectful or more prurient, it probably wouldn't have the same audience.
I host a podcast about movies.
That said, I do hope that this marks a different take on gaming as an expressive artform rather than entertainment. I'm not sure that it will - I think it may bow to the needs of marketing in the end - but the fact that they're going for an angle that would make it more documentary-like is heartening.
Still, this game sounds very interesting. The fact that they're approaching it as much as a story (or collection of stories) as it is a video game makes me think they could pull it off.
The purpose of the game was to train officers to meet with Iraqi officers to negotiate to get what you need while giving them as much of what they need as they can (Supplies, troops, food, etc.) Keep in mind this was in 2007.
First you would have something that you need to request from the officer, such as more of their soldiers taking on the security load, and that officer may have requests of their own. You would plan out talking points, research fictional (or not?) reports on events occurring, and set up a meeting when you are ready.
When you actually talk to the guy, the multiple choice talking points you have depend greatly on the research you have done. For example, I went straight to making the request and pissed off the officer. I should have kept it casual initially, saying "hey how's your family" and such.
I host a podcast about movies.
It's also the most playable, as it actually had fronts, so you don't need directional hearing to know who's shooting at you, but didn't stick you in a trench for the whole game only to have you run to your doom at the end.
The other thing is, is it "bad" or "controversial" because it is a video game and you drive one of the soldiers?
I mean, if you watched Band of Brothers or Saving Private Ryan or Generation Kill, you've seen what's going to be presented in such a game. Does it become not-art and not-drama because it's a video game?
I host a podcast about movies.
Having said that, I'm always conflicted about these things. I enjoy more overtly stylized forms of violence in games or movies, but anything that was actually as brutal as real modern warfare I would have a tough time sitting through, even if the developers were trying to convey "war is shitty." I think people get a satisfaction out of getting to engage their instincts towards hunting and warfare, with however much realism, and it's worthwhile to model. I certainly feel all entertained and triumphant when I'm co-oping a game with some buddies and taking down giant bosses in GOW2 or something like that.
But at the same time ... I have to admit, my suspicion about this game is that if they want to bring in soldiers' reactions or difficult experiences, is it going to end up looking like a tear-jerker "Sarge, tell my wife ... I love her ... *croak*" cutscene while someone else's country is smoldering around you? If they take a higher road than that in development, how is this plan to convey the subjective experience of war going to balance against the need for a snappy cover mechanic, fun and engaging third person shooting, and so on? Is it going to be a "you can have your bullet laden ice cream after you eat your socially responsible veggies?" thing?
Beyond that, as people have been pointing out, most conflicts are murky. Whose side do you show? Whose side don't you show? Do you see anything besides the peak, action-movie-ified moment of open fire, or do you have a bonus game level like Frogger where kids try to avoid getting blown up by left over landmines? Somehow I suspect a video game which mostly consists of your character going to physical therapy to learn to live with prosthetic limbs while waiting for the VA to process his paperwork would probably not get very high scores from Gamespot or IGN. A game where you play a scientist studying the health risks that come with using DU shells would probably not be a best-seller.
Oh well. I am genuinely interested to see the final product and see the reaction to it.
They don't do this often, but it can be done.
Also, is this a 3PS or an FPS?
For example, a game version of Mice and Men which draws you to the inevitable end no matter what the player does (this would probably require a supercomputer and the best programmers of all time, though)
By "standard" I don't mean the perspective and that your character has a gun. I mean with a focus on fast-paced action, "challenge," and adrenaline rushes. The fact is that neither your character nor your enemies in these games has any emotional resonance whatsoever. Your character comes back if he dies, instantly. Your enemies may as well be the not-zombies from Resident Evil 4.
You can't simply take this formula and slap on "emotional resonance" and "moral ambiguity." These are things that the underlying gameplay needs to be designed around. Shadow of the Colossus is really the only "action" game I can think of that even comes close to accomplishing this. A war game would have to go a lot farther to satisfy me.
I think it's unconscionable to make trivial action games out of real wars where people suffered and died, let alone current wars.
Definitely part of the equation. The Second World War saw the involvement of effectively the world's biggest industrial powers--the United States, Germany, Japan, and the Soviet Union (just to name a few). All of these countries, and their allies, either manufactured or had limited access to things like submarines, aircraft carriers, jet-propelled fighters. There really is no one specific technology that any side totally lacked (though some newer things like radar come close). That, and the sheer diversity of theaters makes for a huge potential game component that remains at least somewhat true to the actual event.
Let's face forward to the Vietnam Conflict. Ignoring the fact that US developers don't seemed to be allowed or have no way to make a video game from the perspective of North Vietnam, if you want a flight simulator, it is going to be from the perspective of the United States. Conversely, if you wanted a simulation that put you in the perspective of an anti-aircraft gunner (as boring as that sounds) or air defense soldier, you're going to have to play from the perspective of the North almost certainly. Your options, for the sake of enjoyment, are more limited.
Plus, there's the whole psychology of the "Good War" (not necessarily the case, but it is in our national psyche), but that goes without saying.
This would be the most heartbreaking thing ever.
More on-topic, I have no problem with it in theory. Like I said in the G&T thread, if movies , television, books, and popular music have been doing it and presenting personal stories based around the conflict, I have no idea why video games should be a neglected format for this sort of thing. I think it's getting a lot of reactionary bitching partly because when people think "video game," they immediately assume some sort of shallow experience, even hardcore fans of games, and even people who have played and enjoyed games that weren't shallow or meaningless.
What games actually added to your understanding of the moral complexity and suffering involved in warfare?
I understand that there are ways in which games have a great deal of depth and meaning. But those ways don't really track with what we're talking about in this thread.
Can you explain why they were so meaningful? Or should I just look at them on Youtube?
Edit: in light of these scenes, did you have any moral qualms with gunning down people in the game?
This is precisely the game I was thinking of. Additionally, you have to remember not to try and hold these games up to some impossible standard that you wouldn't hold other popular media to. A war movie doesn't have to completely explain extremely complex issues or the rationale and politics behind the war in order to present a worthwhile story.
From the start, this Six Days in Fallujah game has been about soldiers from the conflict and their efforts to get their personal experiences put through to a wider audience. That they chose a game to do it in doesn't make the effort any less meaningful.
The intro stars a desposed foreign leader of a Middle Eastern country, on his final ride to be publicly executed on the world stage
You play as him...it's...it's impossible to put in words, but they take advantage of the forced perspective to create a real sense of tension and palpable terror
It flips the notion of being "invincible" in an FPS on its head; you are going to die, there is nothing you can do about it, and you are not a bad guy. The Bad Guys have won. You take the looong, sloooow taxi ride through the city, watching the city flicker by...former supporters being gunned down in the streets...normal people going about their business. And then you get forced on stage...yeah. It's very good
It's...it's amazing
Seriously, Qingu, I can totally understand your complaints about FPSes but COD4 was actually very thought-provoking on the issues you've raised and gave me a glimpse of what these guys can do with OIF if they truly wanted to
Also, I agree that that's not saying much, but even removed it's a fine piece of storytelling on its own
Of course, I'm also in the army, and I'm being deployed in a month and a half, so I kind of have to be black and white about those sorts of moral qualms. (There's no place in debating matters of who is right or wrong when motherfuckers be shooting at you and your squadmates. Sorry) That might've influenced my opinions whilst playing...the insurgents certainly do have a somewhat lukewarm good reason to fight against us, they're just going about it all wrong and being cocks about it, imo
I dunno. Qingu I'm not the best to ask, you should probably ask a civilian who's played how they feel about COD4 since my perceptions are inherently skewed.
The only people who don't seem to understand this are kids. And, honestly, I'm sure our government is more than happy for kids to think war is like a video game.
Do you really think there are people consciously thinking "I'm glad our kids don't understand that war is one of the most horrible things imaginable, and that it destroys people whether they live or die, and ruins millions of lives; that means we can manipulate them more effectively!" ?
I find it hard to believe.
Does Deus Ex count?
I don't.
Makes it easier to hit enlistment numbers, that's for sure.
The greatest thing COD4 did story wise was presenting the good guys not as supermen who make the world a better place. The US invasion fails, thousands of servicemen are killed, the entire area is destabilized, and America's enemies are emboldened.
Although in the end you "win", there's so many people killed. It's inescapable that millions of civilians die as a direct result of the actions of the good guys. We never actually see any of these civilians, but in one mission as you're approaching a village, the forces there (emboldened by the victory against the americans in imaginarymuslimcountry) are heard executing civilians out of view.
Another thing, the nuclear scene, you only die because you go back to save a single downed pilot. Being the hero gets you and everyone with you killed.
I think a game could perhaps go further than that, but expecting much more is being unrealistic.
They'd probably disagree that war is one of the most horrible things imaginable, and are glad that there so many boys ready to be made man of. Especially if its against the darkies.
I wish these people would stop thinking. Or breathing.
I'd also submit the barn scene in Brothers in Arms: Hell's Highway.
It definitely drives home the whole "Hey, just because you're the 'good' guys does not mean everything's going to turn out hunky-dory message that the game espouses.
Isn't that more of a "the Germans are super-evil swine" message though? Though I agree there's some touching scenes in that game.