Slashdot Mirror
Vietnam-Based Shooters - A Suitable Topic?
Thanks to GamePro for their 'Pro Vs. Pro' feature focusing on Vietnam-based combat games are justified in their choice of setting. Opinions vary from: "I can't say that I can ever look on Vietnam games as being in good taste", through: "..if it's handled with respect, not only to the soldiers but to the reality of the war and the people involved, then I'll be right there lined up", to: "If developers make the claim of 'historical accuracy', they owe it to the veterans, victims, and the audience to cast an unflinching look at the human consequences of war."
War sucks, yes. Without a doubt. I hope to never fight in one. But why are vietnam games in such 'bad taste' as opposed to the other war games? How is say, Vietcong (or whatever the name of that recent FPS is)different from MOH: Allied Assault? Is it ok to play a game where you shoot Germans, but not orientals?
Yeah, everybody knows that the Nazis are way more evil than the communists on account of killing so many more people. Nazis are the appropriate subject of war games.
Kidding aside, war is an especially brutal undertaking. Especially in the 20th century when modern warfare techniques began to involve far more civilians than combatants. I think that games should avoid glorifying war. Since they are art, they should still portray it but without the whitewashing.
1. Why is the Vietnam War a topic that should not be explored in games?
I mean we have Battlefield 1942, countless historical battle games (Medieval Total War comes to mind here), Terrorist encounter games (Rainbow6 anyone?)
They are all based on true events.
How is it that the Vietnam War deserves different treatement?
2. Why does the developer owe anything to the participants of those events, or to the audience.
Its a game, not a reconstruction. If it were so, it would be _static_. I mean there would be no game here.
I suppose that certain topics are harder for some to understand, but I am not seeing the difference between a game as Rainbow6 (very well received as far as I know) and something like the game proposed.
I am not trying to be a troll, and this is not a flame, I am simply trying to understand the issue a bit better.
If we can make countless games about WWII (BF1942, Allied Assault ...), and the vets of that major war are still living, then why can't we make games about a lesser (but of course, still serious) war? Does the fact that we lost change the 'appropriatness' of it?
1) Vietnam was an unsuccessful action.
2) I don't want the people at the local Chinese restaurant spitting in my food (yes they are from vietnam).
I think movies about historical wars and conflicts are appropriate; Blackhawk Down was one of the most horrifying films i have ever seen. I enjoyed it only in the sense that the filmmaking was really good and the movie exposed (as much as a movie can anyway) the moral dilemnas that urban warfare, and war in general bring about. Contrast this with a game, which is explictly supposed to be fun and enjoyable, and I think one could say that playing as an American soldier firing on young armed Vietcong children, is not, or at least SHOULD not be fun. Again, it's the fact that this actually happened that makes it offensive to me; make a game about evil psycho kids from the cornfields and i'll blast em with a laser gun, but the pain and horror this game would try to emulate is REAL.
anyway, just to be clear i don't think this should be legally prohibited or anything, i just think it's in bad taste.
Cloud City Digital: DVD Production at its cheapest/finest
Get a grip, guys.
I'm Vietnam-age. My father was WWII-age. My friends have children in the Middle East theatre. My grandfather was crippled in WWI. I lost ancestors on both sides of the Indian Wars, and one of my admired adults when I was child fought among Pancho Villa's insurgents and lost an eye.
The point: wars happen. Every generation. Viet Nam was no different. None. People die. Even civilians (when there's a realistic distinction: Sand Creek proves it wasn't considered much in the indian Wars.) No one expects considering the historical consequences of Castle Wolfenstein, WWI aerial combat, or the Punic Wars. Expecting a first-person shoot'em-up in Viet Nam to "consider the historical context" is idiotic.
Every violence related game arguably has very bad taste. There is always someone who will be offended.
<aol>Me too!</aol>
I was going to make the same comment. Why should Vietnam be a less suitable topic than any other war in history? About the only thing I can think of is that there are more Vietnam veterans still around than, say, WWII vets. I don't think that changes anything morally, though.
Chelloveck
I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
In otherwords, just calm down, it's only a game!
This sig no verb.
I think the things that make people get so uppity about the Vietnam being portrayed in games are:
1- Chronological distance - Vietnam is much fresher in the minds of people than other major conflicts.
2- Controversy - Vietnam was a very controversial war that never had any good resolution.
3- Psychological Healing - Most of the soldiers in Vietnam did not come home to heroes welcomes like their predecessors had. This makes it harder to get over the atrocities.
I think these points (and many others) make people really touchy about Vietnam. Now, does that make a game about Vietnam in bad taste. Not in my opinion. I frankly think these people need to get over themselves, and stop living in the past. I am personally tired of being expected to treat every one who has had something bad happen to them with kid gloves, and having to kowtow to every special interest group on the planet. Suck it up, and get on with living.
Personally I think its way to early for these kind of games, the horrors of Vietnam is just too close and most games haven't digesed the World War II games yet. Think about all those children that are struggling to bear the emotional burden of playing these games that in their search for historical correctness displays images that where not ment to be entertainment.
And there are plenty of other successfull wars that could have been covered instead of the Vietnam War. Take for example the American -Mexican war; a great historical drama and a proud moment in our contry's history that too few know about. Game developers should not make games on wars that resulted in great american losses and humiliating withdrawal, such games might destroy the moral of the country to wage war in the future. Instead they should seek to make historical correct games based on true success stories.
Proud patriot and republican voter.
"How can you shoot women and children?" "Easy! You just don't lead them as much."
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
Oh my god, did you just say 'orientals'??
Jingoistic, revisionist movies like Red Dawn and Rambo tried to change the way people looked at the war and spin it into a falsely positive light.
Red Dawn? Obviously he didn't even *watch* the movie... Red Dawn had nothing to do with Vietnam.
Ita erat quando hic adveni.
I do not think that a first-person Vietnam game is in good taste. I will not be playing any of them.
I am slightly hypocritical, because I LOVE WWII shooters, and Rainbow 6, and Operation Flashpoint. I do feel sometimes guilty, though, at enjoying levels where I storm the beaches of Normandy. I mean, these were real people after all. Not those fake real people that you'll never meet... but real people that are still alive and you might run into. People I'm related to.
It's a tough call for me. But I respect other people who want to play them. But if a game comes out tomorrow titled: "Operation Iraqi Freedom: The Hunt for Saddam", I won't be buying it. No matter how fun it is.
no thanks
i'm chipping in here too.
.. umm. for example black hawk down(game) isn't that bad then but vietnam is? how is their traumatic event so horrible that it should be banned from culture(yeah, that's a real good way to handle such cultural-traumas, deny them totally).
and what makes games in this part any different from movies except those vets aren't likely to see those games even, if ever?
and.. eh.. why
the wars in games aren't that spesific usually anyways(you could change it easily to some other war by just changing some titles and graphics).
they should be happy that kids nowadays can learn of the 'wonders' of wars from games rather than firsthand(and not be totally ignorant of what war really is to promote it). it's the people that would like to twist history to their own ends that are dangerous..
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Word. War is hell. Why is Vietnam so taboo? Korea was awful and we got MASH. WWII was terrible and we got Hogan's Heros, BF1942 et al. I'm not saying that war should be taken lightly, quite the opposite. Maybe it's just that Vietnam is still fresh in our minds, while we've forgotten about much of the repugnance of our earlier wars...
-73, de n1ywb
www.n1ywb.com
I think that the biggest difference between WWII and Vietnam games aren't the separation in time... or unresolved feelings... or the race of the peoples fighting. It was all about how black and white the situation was.
WWII. Very black and white. Has there ever been a more black and white war in the past few centuries? Can't feel bad about shooting Germans or Japanese. And I don't feel bad about playing them, either, because I'll get to play as the Allies next round, and the Allies need someone to shoot at.
Vietnam.... not so black and white. Pretty frickin' grey, actually. Do I feel good picking off some Vietnamese farmer with an AK-47? or even NVA regulars? Not nearly as good as I do picking off Nazis.
no thanks
First of all the correct term is Asians, not Orientals. Second of all, WW2 is widely recognized as a "just" war. Hitler was a terrible person and needed to be stopped. Vietnam on the other hand is something that the US should have never gotten involved in. This involvement hurt thousands and thousands of people on both sides. Ask any Vietnam veteran and any WW2 veteran how they feel about this issue about their prospective wars, and you'll most likeley get two different answers.
So WWI games are okay.
WWII games are okay.
Korean war games are okay.
Gulf War games are okay.
Gulf War II games are okay.
Civil War games are okay.
War for Independance games are okay.
Vietnam games are bad?
Just a little bit of hypocrisy there? Jesus, make the games, play them, have fun and quit whining.
Say what? Red Dawn is arguably "jingoistic" but has nothing IIRC to do with Vietnam.
Incidentally, it's certainly true that the Hollywood version of Vietnam combat is distorted but not so much in the way they think. Depictions of the Vietnam War invariably involve American troops (usually single platoons) fighting lightly armed Viet Cong in a village or a jungle ambush, before some planes show up and napalm everyone and Hueys carry out the wounded.
In fact, the number one cause of US casualties in Vietnam was NVA artillery (followed by booby traps). How many movies show large NVA units, or artillery on either side? How many movies even mention the NVA? At this point, I think most people think the war was fought entirely between the US (French? What French? Aussies? Canadians?) and the Viet Cong.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
That is pretty insensitive, no one likes being rolled into one big group. He should have properly referred to them using proper terms like "gooks," "chinks," "slants," or "nips".
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
I fail to see the problem. Could it be the US don't like to be reminded that they lost this one?
I don't see how a Vietnam game is in bad taste either. People are just being overly sensitive.
What I find tacky is games coming out based on the recent bogus war on Iraq.
I don't have any unresolved feelings about the Vietnam War. I'm 26. I wasn't even alive during it. I don't really care. You know, there are a lot of issues in a lot of people's lives that are touchy, recent and sometimes "gray areas", but it's THEIR CHOICE to put themselves into situations where they feel uncomfortable.
If you just had a miscarriage and being around lots of little kids and babies make you feel sad, don't go to the park.
If you're kicking a drug habit and being around drugs make you uncomfortable, stay away from other junkies.
If you're a recovering alcoholic and being around booze and drinking make you feel a sense of discomfort, avoid bars and clubs.
If you have some glitch about the Vietnam War, then don't watch movies about the Vietnam War, don't watch that Oliver North TV show about the Vietnam War that's on FOX NEWS CHANNEL and don't play Vietname-based computer games.
Except that it was from Full Metal Jacket.
All I know about the subject is that you NEVER take a Vietnam vet to see a fireworks display in a swamp.
But why are vietnam games in such 'bad taste' as opposed to the other war games?
WWII, for example, was a time of global insanity. It was the entirety of the free world in a blank-and-white battle for the future of mankind. Every game where Nazis get creamed and Kamakazis fall short is a celebration of good winning over evil. WWII veterans speak very proudly of that war, even though they went through hell during it.
Vietnam, however, was just different. I'm young enough to only know Vietnam in history books and documentaries, but even today thinking of Vietnam conjurs images of Nixon and LBJ and government meddling. It isn't as black-and-white as WWII. Vietnam wasn't really a victory over communism, and it highlighted flaws in the American "War Machine".
Vietnam, in the US, just doesn't have any video game appeal. However, a video game version of "Apocalypse Now" might be appropriate, because that movie was only partially about Vietnam and was actually based on a classic novel called "Heart of Darkness." Making "Platoon" into a video game would just be sad, period.
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
Why is Vietnam so taboo? Korea was awful and we got MASH.
MASH was a commentary on Vietnam, it's just that Vietnam was so taboo (especially at that time) that they set it in Korea. The simple fact is that helicopters (especially the types depicted in MASH) were not nearly as heavily used in Korea as in Vietnam (not to mention that it's been stated many times by the series' creators that this was the case).
I'm not saying that we shouldn't be able to make games based on Vietnam, just that it does cause some concern when people try to portray it in any medium.
-PainKilleR-[CE]
The games blew and really didn't focus on trying to create a Vietnam experience. Whenever developers are working on war games, I think it is necessary to make them responsible and faithful to the conflict be represented.
An RPG would be an interesting way to showcase a war like Vietnam, thought I would hesitate to make it an MMORPG. In terms of a shooter, perhaps online squad play would be interesting - from both US/South Vietnam and North Vietnam positions - but I think the developers would really need to try and stay away from Quake-style fragfests.
I think a responsible, faithful, immersive Vietnam shooter could be made by either Bungie or Retro Studios (Metroid Prime). Easily, the game could be part shooter and part RPG, perhaps focusing on the player's tour of duty. I think a real time effect would be interesting (though would someone play a shooter constantly for a year?) to help convey the atmosphere of that war...
I just know that it wwould not be an easy undertaking.
War is war, if your going to complain about Vietnam being an inappropriate subject matter than you need in include all of them.
My father fought in that war, and was active with a number of Vietnam veteran organizations when I was growing up. The impression I got spending time with some of the other families as to the reason that nobody liked to talk about the war had nothing to do with the moral ramifications or justifiability of the conflict, but rather it was related to Vietnam being the first war that America "lost". Many of the Vietnam veterans disliked veterans of other wars for not welcoming them home, and the other veterans disliked the Vietnam vets because they "lost".
I would say that the Vietnam war changed the American perception of war and the rest of the world every bit as much as the first and second world wars, it removed that candy coating around what America was really about. We learned that we are not infallible or invincible, we learned that good and evil wasn't always black and white. It's no wonder that people are still so sensitive to the time.
But the only way over it is through it, if we never talk about it or come to terms with it how are going to avoid a similar quagmire. Maybe it doesn't matter. Maybe games should only be about sunshine and kittens.
On Wall Street they say "buy low, sell high" On the pad we say, "buy high, sell high" Isn't that somehow better?
It's in bad taste because we lost the war. I think that it is irresponsible to put out a game like this, particularly at a time when we are fighting terrorism in Afghanistan and Iraq and points elsewhere. This may be the most important war in history. Having something out there to remind people that America has lost a war (or is even capable of losing a war) is unpatrotic. If we were to ask the people who wrote this game about their political views, I'll bet I can tell you exactly what they'd say.
*sigh*
Personally, I think the war on terror is an important endeavour. The last thing we need is propaganda that will pull people away for it and diminish support for it, such as the media did during Vietnam (which is the bulk of the reason why we lost.) That's why the game is in bad taste.
Vietnam.... not so black and white. Pretty frickin' grey, actually. Do I feel good picking off some Vietnamese farmer with an AK-47? or even NVA regulars? Not nearly as good as I do picking off Nazis.
You feel better about picking off Nazis? You shouldn't. Nazis aren't evil. Naziism as a movement might be evil, but Nazis are just people. Misinformed people perhaps, but I don't think that the majority of the Nazis deserved to "picked off". You probably would have been a Nazi too if you grew up in the right place and time.
I used to bulls-eye womp-rats in my pants
Hamas recently distributed a game where you assassinate Israeli leaders, lead suicide bombing missions, etc. Surely this is despicable. So, there is some moral line that can be crossed. The question is what the basis for that is.
In that case, it is blowing up innocents and getting points for it, something that is actually going on and immensely horrifying. The game itself is a recruitment tool. I think we would be justified in being disgusted at any such game, whatever the political position. A "MaiLai" game would be revolting to everyone.
If you are going to have a Vietnam game, then, you have to remove the massacres of civilians. Doing that risks whitewashing history. It is this whitewashing that is the question. I personally think it is bad, since there is no reason not to simply make up scenarios. The supposed "realism" that is the draw of such games is disingenuous if they whitewash the real context.
The subject line of your post is the first thing that ran through my head.
Wish I had mod points left for ya.
People don't play games to learn things or get a better understanding of a situation. They play them to have fun. If the game is fun it'll sell no matter what the material. If the game sucks then it won't sell. Its as simple as that.
But see, I am inclined to say that these are all pretty stupid ideas for games. Or at least they will be in the future. Due to the current stage of technology, we have the ability to realistically render scenarios that depict "realistic" historical events, thus we have the ability to portray these events with a level of visual clarity that is ideally suited to,
a) get you just involved enough to have bio- and neurochemical responses to stuff occuring onscreen (this would be the source of that "fun" you freaks have been associating with "Vietnam" and "War") and, <br><br>b) keep you <i>just enough</i> detached from the said action that the *human* weight of what you are seeing is denied you. <br>Flash forward. You are now able to interface directly with your PlayStation 10 (probably be more like 5, but I'll avoid optimism here) through a link that basically muxes all your thoughts, emotions, reactions, etc. and a whole bunched of articifially created content into one bitstream that you view through your mind's eye. Now imagine what a war simulation (were it attempting any sort of "accuracy", historical or otherwise) would look like. Bullets that you can *feel* wizzing past you, along with the heat from the grenades detonating beneath your feet, the And screaming. Lots of screaming. This scenario would be an example of war that is <i>viscerally</i> accurate. While that might make for an excellent educational experience (and perhaps, Divinity willing, fewer wars), I know I would not be interested in it for anything resembling a "fun" experience.
And if they just used this advanced technology for more mindless violence that has none of the qualities it would need to be considered accurate, well then I'd say shame on them. Just like I do now.
P.S. Sorry for the horrific formatting... I'd sure like to change it, but there doesn't seem to be an edit button. (Let it be known this is the first time I've deigned to login and post something in a considerably long time)
I was not aware that the Vietnam War has officially become Taboo(TM). When did this happen? How did Ashcroft manage to shove it up to the Congress and the Senate (we know he can handle Dubiya) in such a short time?
:-) ... Ashcroft however likely to lock up the whole SW company, probably in Guantanamo Bay :-( without trial or due process.
Anyway, free speech is free as in anything goes. There are court-set limits, where applicable (peadophilia, etc), but the rest is FREE (as in GNU).
I would not even object to have:
a. Vietnam War (we have)
b. Vietnam War where you kill the Yankees as a VietCong
c. US soldier occupying Iraq
d. Bhaat Party animal shooting at Yankees
e. Palestinian suicide bomber
f. Israeli Army solder demolishing above mentioned idiot's family's house
As a matter of fact, I tend to think that e) would be an undeground hit. Just think about the free media
Code poet, espresso fiend, starter upper.
So you definitely want to show warcrimes like My Lai, but you want the simulation/model to explain why things like that really happened, so that players learn from them.
Incidentally, one of the most artistic pop songs of the 20thC was Kate Bush's "Pull Out the Pin", sung from the viewpoint of a Viet Cong attacking Americans. [lyrics]
Stop modding my post as "flamebait", you fucking orientals.
news flash: Indians and Iraqis are "Asain" too.
I'm not sure how the Vietnam war is any different from, say, WWII. In fact, if you do your reading, you'd know WWII was a much more bloody and brutal war than Vietnam ever was. The difference is that Vietnam was depicted as a horrible war through the eyes of the camera and media, while WWII was depicted through pro-war propoganda as a good thing.
No war is romantic whatsoever, so singling out Vietnam as being a war we should be sensitive about over much more bloody wars is overlooking what war really is, and how we actually view it. It's almost sad to see people look back on WWII with some form of honor, but be embarrased over Vietnam as some form of taboo. Their should be a little of both (honor and embarassement) associated with each one.
Next, whether or not the US should have gotten involved in Vietnam is a question that is still up for debate. Regardless of how the war was fought or not fought, the war did accomplish both good and bad. And for your information, the conflict in Vietnam led to millions of deaths, not thousands. The moral ambiguity is clear to someone who has objectively studied or fought in the war.
Third, Asians refers to a wide variety of people. Orientals refers to people or objects specifically from East Asia, such as Japanese, Koreans, Chinese, Thailanders and Vietnamese. The only Orientals I know who object to the term are second or more generation East-Asian Americans who object to being called anything but Chinese (Japanese, Korean, etc) - Americans. This is similar to Polish-Americans who object to being called Poles or Polacks. Please leave poorly factual political incorrectness in the classroom.
Finally, if you do want to be politically correct in a correct manner, please learn to tell East-Asians apart from one another. It is not difficult.
Hoist Number One and Number Six.
and a repeat, there was a platoon game for the NES, top down scroller if I remember correctly, like IKARI Warriors without the tanks.
09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0
Mod this post up, please.
I could be wrong , but I get the impression that the people bitching about these games are not Vietnam vets, but others. While I realize that Vietnam was traumatic for some (my stepfather fought at Hue during the Tet Offensive, 101st Airborne, and he doesn't talk much about Vietnam), it was a WAR folks. And despite the stereotypes of vets going into a nervous breakdown when a helicopter flies overhead, I've found them to be well adjusted. That war helped define them, but doesn't rule their lives. Frankly, I think most of them would consider this argument silly.
There always seems to be people against something...some people just NEED to protest something. I think this is one of those cases.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
So what youre basically saying is that because the USA didn't win the Vietnam War, we should treat that war with respect?
How come all Germans, Italians and Japanese are evil, heck all Iraqis and Afghans are evil too, but not the ones who defeated Americans?
The principles on which the Vietcong fought were just as 'evil' as the principles of Saddam and Bin Laden and Hitler at that time. All the soldiers on the enemy side in these conflicts were 'innocent'.
Games that show conflicts like the Vietnam which stirs emotions and shows the real pains of war are less dangerous to our minds than wars in which the enemies are treated as utterly evil: Wolfenstein for example, and some newer games in which you flatten Arab populations.
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
...there was a platoon game for the NES...
I think a modern Platoon game with Doom 3-like realism would just scare the piss out of players. It would probably share more in common with "Alone in the Dark" than any WWII dogfight game.
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
Makes you wonder when someone's going to make a cowboys and indians games in which a bunch of early American settlers commit a massive genocide against the native people of north america.
Hell, you could even make it an RTS and have trains that smash through tribal burial grounds, cannons that obliterate the bow-and-arrow wielding primitives, and so on...
moral of the story...killing of people in real life is never justified. In video games, a hell of alot of fun.
Third, Asians refers to a wide variety of people. Orientals refers to people or objects specifically from East Asia, such as Japanese, Koreans, Chinese, Thailanders and Vietnamese.
Actually, this is incorrect...
In the era when 'Oriental' was coined, it was everything east of Europe. The famous Orient Express rail line went to where? The Orient, of course, aka Turkey. And not all of the 'Orient Express' trains even went as far as Turkey. Some stopped in Sofia, Belgrade. wikipedia
Oriental Rugs typically come from the region previously known as Persia. Mine was made in India, others are made in Pakistan. You can pick them up in North Africa, too.
Oriental in Wikipedia
Laugh while you can, monkey-boy!
Nope, pretty sure all Nazis are evil. If they aren't evil, than they aren't really a Nazi now, are they?
You and I could probably have been warped into Nazis. But that doesn't make them any less evil.
Besides... I was speaking of picking off Nazis relative to picking off Vietnamese. Allow me to illustrate:
n is how good I feel after killing Nazis
v is how good I feel after killing Vietnamese
n > v
There are no numbers assigned to those variables. You just know that one is greater than the other.
If I said 'I like killing Nazis. I don't like killing Vietnamese'
n would still be greater than v. However, you would know that n was equal to 1, and v was equal to -1. But since I made a relative statement.... you cannot draw that conclusion.
So there.
no thanks
The principles on which the Vietcong fought were just as 'evil' as the principles of Saddam and Bin Laden and Hitler at that time.
Yes, the North Vietnamese were supported by China and the USSR, but the whole scenario was just very complicated, it seems. This entry at Wikipedia discusses things in more detail. If you follow some of the links, you'll see that the Vietnam war has its roots in efforts for indpendence from French colonization. If this doesn't leave Americans feeling somewhat conflicted over the whole situation, then perhaps they should look back about 200 years in US history. There just isn't a unabmiguous blatant smoking gun like "Hitler Invades Poland" or "Japs Attack Pearl Harbor," nor does there appear to be full justification for what happened. Like I said, it was just complicated.
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
4 capitalized : of, relating to, or constituting the biogeographic region that includes Asia south and southeast of the Himalayas and the Malay Archipelago west of Wallace's line
Vietnam is the only war we've ever lost. (well, as close to lose as you can get). Therefore it's a tragedy. Korea was a VERY similar war: we went to an asian country to halt the spread of communism and because of that war, there is a democratic south korea. Had we "won" vietnam, there would be a democratic South Vietnam with Saigon as its capital and we wouldn't mourn it.
There is no "just" war.
IIRC, oriental referred to anything east of Rome, while occidental referred to everything west of Rome.
Karma: It's not just a good idea. It's the law.
Nazis aren't evil... Misinformed people perhaps
And I suppose supporting the nazi slaughter of 6 million jews, gypsies, handicapped and gays was simply "misinformation." Oh, and don't give me crap about how they didn't support it and all. In America*, there is no WAY we would sit back and watch the slaughter of half-a-dozen million of our citizens (go ahead... use a japanese internment camp analogy. make yourself sound like a fool by comparing the two). This isn't school-lunch laws - if you don't stand up against something like that, you damn-well supported it.
You probably would have been a Nazi too
Really? Now I take back my comment that Nazis were all evil. I mean, if they'll let a Jew like me in, I guess they've truly been misunderstood.
*Not to try and trump up America, but I can't very well say "this would never happen in Europe," now can I? (fine... so this wouldn't happen in America or Canada)
There is no "just" war.
Damn hippie.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. I hope you're just trolling. There certainly is such a thing as a just war. We may disagree on which wars are just, but you cannot seriously claim that there is no such thing as a just war. Otherwise, how are innocent people to defend themselves from aggression?
You might as well also say that there is no such thing as crime and that police are unnecessary. That stance works fine until it is your home that is robbed, or your family that is hurt.
Vietnam? Canada? Texas?
WW2 is widely recognized as a "just" war. Hitler was a terrible person and needed to be stopped. Vietnam on the other hand is something that the US should have never gotten involved in
There is a bit of political spin in that statement. The pentagon lied to the public about what was going on, but so did the communists. The only difference is that the pentagon got called on it and the communists largely did not. There is a large group that believe involvement was justified as part of the cold war anti-communist effort. The average grunt, VC or NVA, was most likely a nationalist with little interest in politics and foreign lands but the officer corp was carefully selected for "political reliability". The war did limit the expansion of communism.
I think you confuse justification with how the war was waged. There is pretty universal agreement that the war was fought incorrectly. That does not mean we should not have been there at all.
Well in all fairness war is bad however WWII was seen as "black and white" and Vietnam not so much however if you thought about war in the manner of who your enemy is as an individual solider then you would never want to play any war game. Think about it do you really think every single german wanted to fight. In Band of Brothers they have a kid not more then 25 who was in America then his family moved to Germany to fight alongside the Germans, he did not want to himself. Some germans knew nothing about why they were fighting they just did what was right in thier country, you see in that one soldiers eyes he was doing what he though was right fighting for his country and saving his life. The only reason Vietnam is so contrivesal is because of the way it was handled in the end. We went there to protect people jsut like WWII but unlike WWII those heroes who came home got nothing.
I know it's an anal little point, but it's Viet Nam, not Vietnam...
I agree with the injustice of the Viet Nam war, but not all aspects of the conduct of the Allies in WWII are above reproach. There's ample documentation of the Soviet soldiers being given orders to rape German women and murder captured German civilians as they advanced on Berlin. The fire-bombing of Dresden stands out as an atrocity committed by the Allies, and even though I appreciate arguments for the use of nuclear weapons, I still have a hard time feeling comfortable with what we did to the civilians of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Just a question though... how often do video games make a point of being sensitive towards avoiding sensitive subjects and cultural stereotypes? I'm not saying that they shouldn't make an effort to do so more, and that I don't applaud the efforts the do make... just that it isn't their primary focus, and I don't know that it should be. Gandhi, Boy's Don't Cry, Philadelphia and Schindlers List all make great movies... but I'd imagine they wouldn't be that much fun as video games...
The facts have a liberal bias. --The Daily Show
The average Nazi or Nazi supporter knew nothing of the atrocities that happened in the death camps, the death camps were by and large run by the SS, so you could group all the SS into the evil category, but the Nazi movement was mostly a movement of national solidarity, with some people being purposely left out, The mothers at the rallies with their children might not have been happy with their neighbors being dragged out in the middle of the night, but the US did the same to it's Japanese, German, and Italian citizens.
Some Nazis were pure evil, and some just wanted to be part of their nation's glory.
Platoon for NES.
... I can't imagine who okayed this game, to be honest.
There is one segment where you emerge from a tunnel and have to fire into the dark at muzzle flashes.
skye
Ask any Vietnam veteran and any WW2 veteran how they feel about this issue about their prospective wars, and you'll most likeley get two different answers.
Perhaps, but the answers don't reveal the truth. The fact is that WW2 vets were also widely affected by depression and guilt and greatly saddened by the waste, both their dead and the enemy dead. The difference is that the generation of the 60's was more willing to talk openly about such feelings. The generation of the 40's was not, they are more like to simply offer the socially acceptible answer. Many WW2 vet suicides were written up as hunting accidents and accidents while cleaning a gun by authorities. That's the way things were in the late 40's.
It's also easy to be misled by disagreement over how the war was waged with whether we should have gone over there in the first place. The waging of the war colors everything else.
How about an anology with the death camps the US government is currently constructing in Guantanamo?
I guess it's ok to sit back as 600 or so people are put through sham trials and murdered because they're "unlawful combatants".
Seems to me with the Israeli governemnt currently actively placing palestinian people in secured ghettos you should be the last person shooting your mouth off about "standing up" to injustice.
It seems to me that the question is one of how to tell a story. If you notice, Nazis are a common bad guy. They've earned that title. WWII was pretty clear. The Axis powers were the bad guys. So it's safe in a political sense to use Nazis as cannon fodder.
Vietnam wasn't nearly as black and white. Moral clarity is absent from that conflict. So playing as the righteous American fighter has the distinct possibility of pissing off a lot of people. Which I think is a fine thing to do from time to time, but when trying to make a product that's going to appeal to a massive part of the gaming populace, there has to be NO question in the motives of the main character. Not unless you're interested in raking in the dough like Gigli.
Sure, you can play a hitman in the Hitman series and nobody cares. But basing a game on a controversial subject does nothing but invite controversy.
I'm guessing that this is a constant problem in storytelling. Nobody wants to be portrayed as the bad guy. We know Nazis are okay to rag on. The Russians are still okay but they were more devilishly portrayed during the Cold War. The Gulf War and the Gulf War Strikes Back have made it okay to demonize Arabs. But in the 80s, the WWF ran into problems with their character The Iron Sheik. So it hasn't always been okay to make Arabs the bad guys. White guys make good bad guys. They run things, so they're used to playing the bad role. Black guys only make good bad guys if they're selling drugs. I could go on, but I think you see my point. In order to be a bad guy, you have to be extinct, a culturally approved negative stereotype or so hated by everybody that it's okay. Of course, if the bad guys and good guys never really existed, then you can damn near get away with anything.
As for your question about why the developers owe anything to the public, they actually don't. But they do want the public to buy their product. As such, it's a good thing to consider the sensitivities of the target audience. Personally, I think most people that buy Vietcong weren't alive when Vietnam was going on and couldn't care less if it's authentic or not. But if I were the developer, I'd have done my research to make sure that's true. Because the worst thing ever would be to develop a great game and then have it not sell because it was based on Vietnam and not on something less controversial.
Fair enough, but then if we're only talking about your feelings, then that doesn't make a very good reason that Vietnam-Based shooters are in poor taste in general. After all, we are only talking about one person's feelings, which are not quantifiable, and there seems to be no concrete basis for these feelings, so they're completely subjective and illogical, which is fine for feelings, but doesn't support an argument well.
I used to bulls-eye womp-rats in my pants
troll
Um, South Korea is democratic since 1987 due to constant protest of students, of whom several where arrested, some tortured and even killed.
And I say the crippled newborns over decades, and the dead soldiers and civilians on both sides are the tragedy.
I consider that the American public acchieved to get their goverment to withdraw from Viet Nam actually as a victory.
"Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
I may have been unclear, because I think I agree with you on every point. The acts carried out by the Nazis, were, as far as I know, in the running for some of the most vile and heinous acts ever comitted by humans in the history of the world.
They obviously wouldn't let a Jew in, but I don't believe your religion defines who you are. What I meant to say by the you would have been a nazi too comment is that if you had been born into a nazi family or whatever, chances are high that you would have been a nazi too. I'm sure they used all kinds of brainwashing techniques and other questionable practices for recruiting, but that justs illustrates my point that the nazi soldiers at the bottom of the nazi food chain (not the high ranking officials) were fundamentally no different than you or me. They happened to be in a setting that led them into the services of nazis, and they probably didn't even believe what they were doing was wrong.
I'm not diminishing personal responsibility either though. There certainly were plenty of evil nazis, to be sure. After all, someone was leading the movement and giving directions. The officials in charge had a better ability to affect the outcome than the grunt-soldiers that were being brainwashed. And after all, most of the characters one shoots in a video game are the grunt level enemies. But I would have no problem calling the high-level nazi officials evil.
I used to bulls-eye womp-rats in my pants
There are currently around 5 million US veterans from WWII alive from a total of 16 million, of whom about 300,000 died in combat. There are currently around 8 million US veterans from Vietnam alive from a total of 9 million, of whom around 50,000 died in combat. Since 1980, there have been less than 1,000(I believe the number is around 700, or 800) military deaths resulting from combat. The Vietnam war seems more significant today than other conflicts becuase of its scope combined with the fact that it occurred in rather recent history. So, I can understand how many people in America might feel that making a game based on Vietnam is different than making a game based on WWII. Personally I don't feel that there is anything wrong with making a Vietnam war based game. Thinking about why I feel this way, I more or less came to the conclusion that, in my opinion at least, it just another form of commentary/expression, much akin to movies, books, etc. Now I wonder if all topics that are explored in books, or movies would be appropriate for video games though. What I mean, is should anything be taboo? I don't think that anyone would be able sell a video game based on say Nabikov's Lolita, or at least, not today.
The vietnam war is special because the baby boomers opposed it. Since American society bows to them on every other issue, why should this one be any different?
In America*, there is no WAY we would sit back and watch the slaughter of half-a-dozen million of our citizens
You're right. That's why the Native Americans were denied citizenship until we could finish massacring them.
I believe the thread you are responding to meant that there is no justification for war, because it is invariably worse than the problem it seeks to solve.
Regarding your question in the first paragraph: The only lasting methods of social change are nonviolent, so the answer is through nonviolent methods. You might find George Orwell's Reflections On Gandhi relevant. Gandhi's comment regarding the Jews in Nazi Germany is distasteful and unpleasant, but most likely true. The last two sentences of your post are arguing from an emotional point of view, and I can only hope that should such a tragedy befall me, I will remain rational enough to practice what I preach.
If anyone thinks a Vietnam themed game is inherently in bad taste, they MUST believe the same thing about WWII games and even GTA or they are hypocrites.
Real people dying is a Very Bad Thing. A simulation of a situation of a real person dying is an exercise for the individual. If they die in Vietnam, if they die in France, if they die on Main Street USA they are all the same. If you shoot one simulated person, you have shot them all. To say otherwise is some sort of bizarre virtual racism. Its ok to shoot Germans but not Vietnamese? Keep your labels, they are just 3D models of people.
Pick one:
A) I am ok with games portraying violence against realistic looking people.
B) I am not ok with games portraying violence against realistic looking people.
A Vietnam themed game will likely follow one soldier and that soldier will do heroic things, just like a WWII game.
Let me share something with you. I'm austrian, both my granddads were fighting in ww2.
One of them was a teacher and had to join the NSDAP (national socialist german workers' party) or he would have been banned from teaching (he had a family to support, too), so technically he was a nazi without supporting the actual ideology.
Being in the NSDAP still didn't save him from having to "defend his home soil" in africa (wehrmacht/regular army) once the war started. (Austria joined the german reich in 1938 in a still embarassing mixture of being taken by force -- the german army apparently was ready to crush what was left of the austrian one after our civil war -- and being overly enthusiastic, welcoming and flag-waving. The official version is that austria was the first victim of germany, but the pictures and movies from the time seem to tell a different story.)
The other one, my mother's father, was a Siebenburgener Sachse, a member of the german minority in romania. When romania joined the war he couldn't join the german regular army (because he wasn't a german citizen) and he didn't want to join the regular romanian army (because he had bad experiences with how the romanians treated the germans, or so i was told). Hence, he joined the SS after getting himself stretched so he met the minimum height.
He died when i was six, but what my mother told me about him was twofold: Firstly, he was -- and i guess that didn't change even after the war -- a nazi by heart and very convinced of his ideology.
And secondly, she told me that he wouldn't have hurt a fly.
Obviously, she loved her father and probably has a very idealized picture of him, also seeing him more as a victim of the war (he came back from a russian POW camp weighing something around thirty kilos, iirc, and suffered from diabetes afterwards).
I do not know wether he was actually involved in any war atrocities, but even without that i see a huge dissonance between not hurting a fly and being a member of the SS and a convinced nazi (because nazism in itself IS aggressive and violent). But i have no doubt at all that both aspects were part of his personality, because people just aren't only good or only evil.
Two different people from very different backgrounds with different motivations for joining nazi organisations. Yet, i can understand both of them in some way, and even though i despise fascism and racism nowadays, i know that if i was in their position i might have acted the same.
Of course, anyone who lives in the time I live in and knows what I know and STILL insists in being a fascist or racist or neo nazi should be severely beaten with a cluestick.
Just my two cents.
Especially for this post, i'll double up my regular signature with this jewel that i strongly believe in:
--
"You can no more win a war than you can win an earthquake." -- Jeannette Rankin
Free as in mason.
From whose perspective shall we consider such a game "handled with respect to the people involved"?
"In Vietnam, they call it the American War."
~ Regret to Inform
What are you talking about, Vietnem gave us the hereos of one of the great tv shows of the 80's- the A-team.
Can someone please explain to me why "Asian" is the correct term, and not "oriental"?
Slashdot is probably not the best place to ask this question, and it probably won't get answered anyway.
I've never really understood arguments that oriental isn't "correct." It's not as if it's derogatory, any more than "occidental." "Oriental" has a very specific meaning, one that is arguably slightly broader in meaning, but a legitimate meaning nonetheless. I can see an argument to be made for being more specific or some such thing, but I'm not sure that "oriental" is "incorrect." It's especially not necessarily incorrect given the original poster's intended contrast between European combatants and Asian combatants (e.g., occidental culture and oriental culture). The poster was emphasizing a worldview that treats everything from the "east" as somehow being different.
And let's be clear: war is war. Every game that treats the topic of WWII is just as potentially disrespectful as any Vietnam game. Arguments that WWII was a "just war," and therefore somehow morally and experientially uncomplicated, are ridiculous. Arguing that it's okay to create a game involving killing of Nazis and Japanese because the goals of Germany and Japan as states were somehow clearly "evil" is to engage in prejudice and stereotyping. German soldiers during WWII were real people, as were the Japanese, and the dynamics of their societies and relationships were just as complicated as Vietnam. WWII was not simply a case of an "evil" state deciding that it was time to do its evil deeds.
Note that I'm not saying that WWII wasn't justified, or that WWII games shouldn't be made. I personally think it's acceptable to make games based on Vietnam, WWII, or any war for that matter. I just think you're fooling yourself if you think that WWII games are deemed acceptable for any reason other than the fact that it took place before most gamers' generations. Ordinary men become ideas and legends when we have nothing but memories. I suspect the same will happen with Vietnam: when people involved in Vietnam are dead and gone, they cease to be real, and become idealizations, legends--the stuff of games.
Glad I checked to see if someone else posted this first. Amen, brother. Where are my mod points when I need them.
Vonnegut was right: Of all the words of mice and men, the saddest are, "It might have been."
Actually, the helicopters in the film and TV show MASH were used extensivly in the Korean War by the United Nations.
The bubble cockpit piston driven helo from MASH is the H-13 Sioux (model 47) from Bell Aircraft. It was produced from 1946 to 1973. They were used for medivac and recon starting in 1951 and they evacuated around 18,000 UN casualties during the conflict.
The Sioux was replaced by the OH-6A Cayuse early in the Vietnam conflict.
In Korea the Navy used the Sikorsky H-19 Chickasaw and the H-21 Shawnee
Oh yes, there can be "Just Wars".
Wars to free slaves are just. Wars that save lives are just.
If the Second World War hadn't happened as it did, if the Allies had sat by as Germany annexed Poland and Eastern Europe and eventually overran the Soviet Union that would have emboldened the Imperial Japanese and instead of tens of millions dying, hundreds of millions would be enslaved.
Vietnam is complicated.
Ike refused to help France in '54 because of the way they were carryin' on in Africa and the Middle East, so he didn't send in the B-52s or '47s to help bomb.
Then in the early 60s we have the Soviets regrouping, Missiles in Cuba, we will crush you speeches, Berlin Wall, shootdowns of recon planes in East Germany,Castro in Cuba, then the Gulf of Tonkin.
"Remember Yankee Station? It was a spot in the ocean where the destroyer USS Maddox -- gathering intelligence for the South Vietnamese -- was attacked by four North Vietnamese patrol boats on August 2, 1964. Maddox -- aided by carrier aircraft -- severely damaged the attackers, leaving at least one dead in the water. The next night the Maddox (and the USS Turner Joy sent to reinforce it) reported another attack. LBJ then demanded, and got on August 7, open-ended authority to use military forces in Vietnam. (The Democratic convention met three weeks later to nominate LBJ as its presidential candidate).
In the decades since we've learned that much of what Congress was told about the Tonkin Gulf incident was right, and some was an error but not a lie. After many years of analysis of intelligence and logs, the Navy determined that there hadn't been a second attack. But by 1968, the McGoverniks had already convinced themselves that the Tonkin Gulf resolution was a fraud, based on an entirely on a needlessly provoked and fictionally reported incident."
Uncle Ho in the 50s was pulled between Capitalism and Communism, but in the end the threats of Communism outweighed America's ability to stay out of Vietnam.
Are you joking? North and South Korea is the powderkeg that'll probably kill us all. If the place had been overrun and annexed by China, less people would have died and been miserable and everything would have sorted out by now. Instead it's a horrible mess waiting to explode again, only worse this time.
Same with Vietnam, obviously, though it worked out marginally better. Aren't you glad no stronger power came in to defend the plucky American Union from the invading Yankees when you had your own civil war? Just let people fight their own battles and kill each other in the way they've chosen. It generally works out better than trying to spread your ideology by attacking the spread of competing ones.
Enlighten me, how did, for example, WWII make things "worse" than the problems those fighting it were "seeking to solve"? If you think we would have been better off not fighting WWII, I'm sorry, but you are living in a dreamworld.
/., but you did bring it up. :)
You are partially right when you say that "The only lasting methods of social change are nonviolent". But you don't go far enough. The only lasting way to change society is to change people's hearts. The root cause of all war is self-centeredness, jealousy, and pride. If these problems can be solved, there truly won't be a need for war. How to do this? Well, the only way I know of is through a regeneration of the mind, done through the radical process of becoming a follower of Jesus. I know this is not a popular position on
Um...slavery? I'm pretty confident that George Washington was evil.
Face it - everyone can be corrupted or coopted, and everyone has the capacity to be evil or good. Shoot all the simulated Nazis you want, they don't have simulated families (yet - someone is doubtless working on that SimGame). But don't think war is ever black & white, or, um, the terrorists win.
You're right, but things arent so simple in Afghanistan either. Heck youve got everyone from India, China, France, USA, Britain, Iran, Saudi, Pakistan directly involved there. Are they any less respectable unless they win the war? Russians for one seem to respect Afghans a little more now.
Noone is inherently 'evil'. The very use of this word seeps of ignorance. I hate to make it sound like a flame but the 19 suicide bombers on 9/11 were motivated simply because they thought they were right. They were never taught the compassion of local populations the way veterans teach us of the Vietnamese. The vast Arab populations view the pilots of the B-52s the same way Americans view those 19. I just cannot believe in a universal good or evil. I'm muslim and I've seen the Taliban's idea of good and evil.
As long as kids level german armies in Wolfenstein, its only fair to do the same to the Vietnamese and enjoy it. The fact that veterans are so compassionate about their populations only shows how people would feel about these targets now if wars had been fought agaist these people years ago.
Sadly warfare is no longer a man-to-man issue now. Most 'enemy' casualties are due to cluster bombs on civilians nowadays, where GIs dont have to clean body parts. They can remain emotionally tough for subsequent conflicts Republicans will come up with.
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
I think that Gandhi's comment about the murdered Jewish people in Nazi Germany needs to be taken in after-the-fact context; he knew at that point that they had already died, and was willing to think in terms of what else could have been accomplished by those deaths. Remember that he was also a staunch Hindu (something which also led to another distasteful part of his legacy, his unwillingness to condemn the caste system for fear it would undermine Hinduism as a whole) - for him, death was not eternal and could be considered alongside other elements of the cycle of life.
Thanks for the link; I'm always newly astounded by the clarity and force of Orwell's essay writing.
So why do people think video games shouldn't be able to discuss the same topics?
Because they are not considered free speech. In my find, this is a clear case of ignorance against a young medium. Comic books went through the same thing when they were young. We just need to wait a few more years until we're middle aged and still playing games, and our kids are too. Then this irrational fear will hopefully diminish, and we can commence hating and fearing whatever our kids our doing by then ("How dare you re-enact your grandfather's battle in that holodeck!").
---
WARNING:Slashdot karma not redeemable in the afterlife.
Shouldn't we also be concerned if games based on the new Iraq War (http://www.operation-iraqi-freedom.us/) are accurate as well? (doesn't look like this game is accurate)
--- WAL
Has already happened. A few times, as I recall.
Maybe it's just that Vietnam is still fresh in our minds
Ahem. My grandparents were there when the Germans bombed Rotterdam, the Netherlands on May 10, 1940. That is over 63 years ago, but does anybody think that makes the memory of that any less tarumatic? I think not.
To get back on topic, I did read the article and I could not help shake the feeling that the real question should be: Is it OK to make a game on a war that the US actually *lost*?
der Joachim
Geek runner, motorcyclist and professional know-it-all
Pure and simple. If the americans won, it would be like all the gulf games and other war games. It's pathetic. Such an insular society it is...
Lately I've been enjoying Day Of Defeat, a Half-life mod, set in WWII. One of my favourite maps is set in Caen, a town in the north of France, a few weeks after D Day. Great map: big, city in rubbles, lotsa different paths to take, great hide & seek possibilities.
A few days ago I watched a documentary about it on Discovery. In reality, Caen was a place of utter carnage, the city being carpet bombed and changing hands a couple of times, bloody street to street battles, Britons and Canadians on one, Germans on the other, consisting mostly od Hitlerjugend, basically kids with guns (largely under 20 years of age).
Did it diminish my enjoyment of the game? Nope. Would it disturb me if I was a WWII veteran? Probably.
Carmageddon would probably disturb me if I was ever hit by a car. GTA would if I was ever carjacked. Doom would if I was an floating alien head.
My point is: games need a conflict to be interesting, and it's only natural that conflicts from our past be used in games. They will inevitably be uncomfortable and disturbing, even objectionable for some, but we live in a (presumably) free societies, people have the choice of avoidinf things (games, movies, books) that disturb them. I don't believe they have the right to impose their objections on others.
Nobody mentioned this? It's hella swank. You can be a Marine or a VC sapper or whatever:
Tour of Duty (yet another Half-Life mod, but a good one)
It's not about who you shoot. You can shoot Americans in MOHAA, BF1942, etc.
However, there is hardly any doubt that the United States of America LOST in Vietnam. Tens of thousands of casualties for the pleasure of getting to go home a loser.
Could this be why Vietnam and Vietnam alone is a touchy subject when it comes to American conflicts?
The average German (let alone the average Nazi) most likely knew some of what was going on. They would certainly have been aware of the concentration camps even if they only thought hey were labor camps and not death camps.
Most of the killing did not actually occur in the death camps anyway but by soldiers behind the front lines as the army moved into Russia (the einstatzgrupen). These were often regular soldiers, not the SS troopers or die hard Nazi's. Check out Ordinary Men by Chris Browning if interested. Granted the German population was generally shielded from most of this info, but with the large number of ordinary soldiers who knew what was happening suspicions should were probably widespread.
As far as it happening in the US, this is also not correct. Yes, the Japanese on the West Coast were put into internment camps (though not the Japanese in other parts of the country, or even Hawaii- you know where Pearl Harbor is). And I'm not aware of any German or Italian citizens being arrested and put into camps (please correct me if I'm wrong). This despite the fact that before the war there were pro-Nazi rallies held in the US, including one at Madison Square Garden, and there being many prominent Nazi sympathizers in America.
It seems people have a lot of slightly varying opinions on this, with a lot saying that yest vietnam was somehow different. It seems to me what we're looking at is the dissonance of the idea of what we believe to be a just nation (The US) fighting a just ware (democracy v. communism) losing. Giving up. Bad guys winning. It's hard to rectify that! There's definitely a 'historical narrative' that our history books and culture in general want to adhere to, a la Hegel & Marx. We believe subconsciously we are all on the right side of history... but really right and wrong have little to do with what happens in war. In reality Vietnam got botched for a huge variety of reasons - and it had very little to do with whether or not the US motives were noble - just as no war is won based on its motives. They're won by the side with the most committment and dedication to winning. Anyway, what I would ask is what do Germans think about WW2 games? The portrayals of Germany ranges from totally morally equivalent with the Allies (in most of the tank/strategy type games) to comically evil in Wolfenstein. Is it difficult for a german to play a game as a regular Wehrmacht general and not envison the Deaths-Head clad SS? Why don't we have FPS civil war games? They are ALL strategy, and morally ambiguous at best (as all top-down strategy games are, its their nature). Why not a FPS with the missions being Sherman's march to the sea? Why not WWII bomber games with Dresden as a mission? The more I think about it the more it seems the whole topic is silly. They are games, they all avoid the really nasty stuff. Civilians don't get killed en masse, combat is either totally abstract or comical. Even MoH ( a great game, I love it) falls into the Duke Nukem cliche of one super tough soldier killing hundreds, thousands even of enemies. Our culture in general has some really complex issues dealing with when war/terrorism/death become acceptable forms of entertainment. It's like the southpark episode where AIDS is old enough to become acceptable joke material. I think people should take a step back and recognize that they are playing games about shooting PEOPLE. If they can't stomach that then they shouldn't play any war game - if they can then they need to recognize that the games aren't real, they aren't even a close approximation of real, and it isn't in the budget to get the facts straight.
Agreed. Vietnam was a particularly messy situation, but really, it wasn't that different from Korea except that it was mismanaged and it was the only war the US ever lost. I think a Gulf War II game is inappropriate for one reason, and one reason only: it hasn't been over long enough to be considered history, as opposed to current events; indeed, the weekly death toll would lead me to believe that is is persisting.
Yep. The war is still going on which shows the game makers who are releasing titles have dubious moral and ethical guides at the helm of their companies.
It was bad enough when the anti-terrorist games floodgates opened, but at least that was understandable since terrorism has no particular tie to any specific history. It's been around for centuries, and been the subject of games for many years before the current climate.
Noone is inherently 'evil'.
I agree; however, some ideologies are so incompatible that people programmed in one cannot mix with others. Now-a-days, this seems to occur at the extremes, where Christian extremists want to dominate the world in their image, and Muslim extremists want the same. It think it would be fair to say, also, that they most often use their religion merely a branding scheme for their whacked-out philosophies. The war in Afghanistan still seemed fairly clearly about ideology. I really don't know about Iraq, now...we'll just have to wait and see. From what I've seen Afghanistan was so desolate and ravaged by the Russians that anything the US does might improve the situation, but Iraq is sitting on a gold mine. The battle over ideology in Iraq may have just been a red herring, but I really don't know (Saddam may have just been in the way).
I hate to make it sound like a flame but the 19 suicide bombers on 9/11 were motivated simply because they thought they were right. They were never taught the compassion of local populations the way veterans teach us of the Vietnamese.
Even if the suicide bombers were sweet as kittens, they were programmed to destroy anything that didn't support their vision. Even Hitler had a wife and family, but that doesn't justify his "world view".
Brain washing is a proven psychological method, and the suicide bombers were most definitely tainted. While physically human, they could be more accurately described as a smart bomb but flesh and not metal. Not only were the suicide bombers not taught of a compassionate enemy, they were taught quite the opposite. That is why they are so dangerous.
They can remain emotionally tough for subsequent conflicts Republicans will come up with.
Repbulican imperialism is pretty frustrating. While I would rather not see either a Republican nor a Democrat win in 2004, I'm not sure the US has much of a choice in the matter when only two parties can possibly win. I think the US is facing a different type of internal ideolical war, but one where the federal government itself could become a terrorist organization against its citizens. I'm going to have to think pretty hard about who to vote for in that election.
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
Regarding your question in the first paragraph: The only lasting methods of social change are nonviolent, so the answer is through nonviolent methods.
I seem to recall that a lasting change was made in Germany, rather directly by WWII, and that Germany has yet to revert back to Nazism. Heck, the US was founded on violent acts, and doesn't seem to be going anywhere soon. I'm sorry, this idea is very obviously wrong. War is a tool for affecting change, the fact that it is used so often to create a very bad change is sad.
As for Ghandi's view:
Gandhi's view was that the German Jews ought to commit collective suicide, which "would have aroused the world and the people of Germany to Hitler's violence." After the war he justified himself: the Jews had been killed anyway, and might as well have died significantly.
So basically, what is being proposed is, the jews were likely to die anyway, so they should have killed themselves to make a political statement, that would have probably been either covered up by the Nazi's or ignored by the world. I have a lot of respect for Ghandi and his beliefs, but bullshit. The jews would have done better to resist and die fighting, than to do Hitler's work for him; they just got screwed by the slow boil principal for govenments to oppress people. Where they needed to start resisting was when the German govenment forced them to wear the Star of David so that they could be identified easily, if they had just gone underground, and publicly denied their religion, they might have been better able to resist the Nazi's plan to put them all in death camps. For example, look at the French Underground resistance, rather than try and make some flashy public display, they quitely fought to provide information and support to the allies, and that support was crucial. In the end, a lot of the memebers of the underground survived. But you and Ghandi would propose that they should have just killed themselves, and deprive the allies of a lot of the support and information that made D-Day successful. And what happenes when all anyone does is kill themselves when faced with a tyrant, you get a lot of dead people, and a tyrant who gets to continue being a tyrant. Sure, eventually that tyrant dies, though usually another one steps up. The only way tyrants are ever removed is through violence or infrastucture collapse. Violence tends to stop the tyrant now, infrastructure collapse often takes a few centuries. Sorry, I just don't buy into the idea that we should just roll over and let people step on us, yes it might kill me to resist, but if my resisting will make the lives of my decendants better, the so be it.
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Laziness is the father.
If you play the part of a NLF (i.e. VC) operator, after the war is over you have to play the 'Reeducation Camp' level. That's the level where you get liquidated by the Communist Vietnamese who took the Nation over with Soviet and Communist Chinese support. The last line of text should be "I was fighting for a unified Vietnam, not a communist takeover of South Vietnam. Being executed sucks. I wonder what Jane Fonda and the activists of the extreme left anti war movements would say if they could see me being starved to death here?"
/. The war in Vietnam was solely the fault of the U.S.A., which is the most evil Nation to exist over the past 50 years. To quote Whoopie Goldberg, speaking on behalf of /.ers everywhere: "I don't see what harm communism has ever done."
Wait. I forgot. This is
Back to your regularly scheduled skewed view of history, current events, etc.
"Our forces were ordered to commit atrocities and did so. While there are debatable justifications for the war itself, there is little justification for some of the tactics we used..." Atrocities like locking up all the Japanese-Americans who lived on the West Coast and putting them into camps? Atrocities like fire-bombing the largely civilian city of Dresden? I think the only big difference between WWII and Vietnam is that history is written by the winner, and in Vietnam, we didn't win. From what I understand, there were many protests against our involvement in WWII here in the US, even after Pearl Harbor. The difference was we won, and they were conveniently left out. Notice the big differences between other war games and Vietnam. We won all our other wars. And who was it that said "History is written by the winner"? Makes you think, doesn't it?
Because America didn't win in Vietnam.
Just a thought.
--------
Bleah! Heh heh heh... BLEAH BLEAH!!! Ha ha ha ha...
You're probably right, though I think that doing it publicly to save ones skin is probably forgivable, while secretly keeping faith. Then again, you might want to look at my sig for my view on religon anyway, it tends to affect my view of people willing to die for their religion.
"Religion is the opiate of the masses"
Along with that, anyone who is that dedicated to their beliefs worries me. An inability to question one's own belifes is the sure sign of a nutcase who just needs the right proding to go kill someone.
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Laziness is the father.