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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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...
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]
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.
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.