War (Games) are Hell and so are the Ads

An anonymous reader writes "As the clock ticks down for ShellShock: Nam' 67 we find out that the press releases are as controversial as the game. RedassedBaboon quotes several of the email press releases that seem to brag about the joys of killing and fun of having sex with a base camp mama san. My favorite obnoxious and mostly non-sensical email quote: 'You'll always remember your first kill. And in ShellShock: Nam'67 you'll definitely get more than just one.' The article goes on to point out how this behind the screens publicity push runs contrary to the public face of the game - which is supposed to depict the real horrors of war. The article ends with this thought: 'I can't imagine Coppola or Stone sending out exhuberent messages to the national press about how fun it was going to be to catch a wave off the coast of Vietnam in Apocalypse Now or how sexy Platoon's mama sans are. Before the gaming industry can be taken seriously by the world, it has to be taken seriously by itself.' How very true."

Comments

Scary

[MikeSweetser]

I agree with the article, this IS pretty scary. I have no problem with war games, but basically making a joke out of a serious subject like this is somewhat over the line, IMO..

Mike

Re:Scary

[77Punker]

Yeah, and nobody made a joke out of WWII? WWII was a much larger problem than Vietnam, but we ended up with TV shows like Hogan's Heroes and games like BF1942; neither of these seem to take it too seriously yet they were commercial successes.

Re:Scary

[Blakey Rat]

In Hogan's Heros, the humor was based around the fact that the Germans never knew what was going on while the American prisoners had already figured out the prison and were doing more for the war effort by being in prison then they could have been with a rifle on the front lines. It wasn't making light of the war, it was basically just "ain't those Nazi's stupid and those Americans with-it?" propaganda made after the war.

I've never played Battlefield 1942, so I can't speak for it.

Re:Scary

[merdark]

I agree, but personally, I think making any *game* out of real historical wars is wrong.

It is decidedly easy to make fictional war games, and I'd say they would even be more interesting. There are a number of problems with real war games.

For instance, 90% of the horrors of war are not shown. What are we trying to say? That our grandparents experiences were 'fun competition?' That war is fun in general? There is no way that a game can simulate the real fear of dying that soldiers face, or losing a best friend, or family member.

Another problem with war games is that they are *always* about the US beating somebody up. Not being from the USA, playing games which are 'ra ra usa' is simply not fun. Sure, some of the multiplayer games allow you to be the enemy... but this is small consolation for non US gamers.

The lack of non-US war games is also illustrative of the war like nature of the American culture. While most societies feel war is to be avoided at all costs, American society is rife with things glorifying war, and games are the biggest souce of such propaganda.

Since this site is US centric, I am sure I will get lots of responses showing that there *ARE* non-US based war games. And other societies DO glorify war. I have no doubt such examples exist, but the fact remains that the vast majority of war games are American, and make light of very serious topic.

Re:Scary

[Anonymous Coward]

The games are US-centric cause: Who wants to play the loser? You must be French.

Re:Scary

[merdark]

You do realize that the US is not the only 'good guy' in wars like WW2? In fact, the US only jumped into WW2 near the end. There are plenty of other 'winners' for WW1 and WW2.

Also, the US never 'won' Vietnam. They pulled out. This is partly why Vietnam was seen as one of the worst wars the US ever involved itself in. But I guess revisionist history now paints Vientam as a stunning display of US power.

You are a perfect example of the ill effects of war games.

Re:Scary

[meta-monkey]

These games are made primarily by American companies, for market in America. What do you think American gamers are more likely to buy: a game where you play as an American soldier in World War II, or a game where you play as the British in the Fauklands war?

You may be right about the culture, though.

The lack of non-US war games is also illustrative of the war like nature of the American culture. While most societies feel war is to be avoided at all costs, American society is rife with things glorifying war, and games are the biggest souce of such propaganda.

In America, war is avoided up to the point where the cost of not going to war is higher than the cost of going to war. Since war is sometimes necessary, and we are very thankful to those who fight for us, we glorify the soldiers, and hence, the acts of warfare in which they engage. This is a healthy way to protect America's national interests, so I have no problem with video games that refelect these same values.

I'm sure there are war games made by French game companies for market in France. "Press A to drop your weapon." "Press B to surrender." "Use the X button to out Jews to the Nazis and build up your collaboration meter!"

Re:Scary

[david duncan scott]

Near the end?

The beginning of WWII is generally cited as the invasion of Poland in September of 1939. The absolute latest date for US entry (a date that would ignore Lend / Lease and US participation in the Battle of the Atlantic, a grave diservice to the crew of, among others, Reuben James, never mind the quasi-official status of the Flying Tigers) would be December 7, 1941. Since the war ended in August of 1945, it spanned 77 months, and Pearl Harbor was attacked in the 27th month since Poland (arithmetic in my head, but it's about right.) Hardly "near the end".

You remind me of the excellent Beyond the Fringe routine, Aftermyth of War, which ends with something like. "...and then the Americans came in and spoiled everything..."

As for Viet Nam, my favorite comment was the old T-shirt that read something like, "South East Asian War Games, 1958-1972: Second Place"

Re:Scary

[KDR_11k]

Well, France won WW1, so they could make a game about THAT.

Re:Scary

[tsm_sf]

Maybe he's thinking of WWI... We came in late on that one. How does that old joke about the doughboys go?

Re:Scary

[david duncan scott]

Yeah, we sure did. My grandfather would have just as soon waited a little longer, like maybe forever.

I don't know which joke you mean, although I suppose that almost any joke about that war would be old by now.

Re:Scary

[merdark]

Hm, I guess I was thinking of WWI then. I obviously need to brush up on history. Sorry.

Re:Scary

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure there are war games made by French game companies for market in France. "Press A to drop your weapon." "Press B to surrender." "Use the X button to out Jews to the Nazis and build up your collaboration meter!"

Really? The French game I bought must be older because it set during the American Revolution and it has them pulling our asses out of the fire.

Re:Scary

[merdark]

In America, war is avoided up to the point where the cost of not going to war is higher than the cost of going to war. Since war is sometimes necessary, and we are very thankful to those who fight for us, we glorify the soldiers, and hence, the acts of warfare in which they engage. This is a healthy way to protect America's national interests, so I have no problem with video games that refelect these same values.

This is an interesting view. I guess I would question whether this is the best way to thank the soldiers for what they have done. Would these soldiers want war glorified in order to make them out to be heros? Or would they rather people learn the true horrors of way, to better understand the real sacrifices made by troops abroad?

Another point which many outside the US would question is when war is necessary. Arguably many of the wars fought by the US were not necessary. Obviously some of them are,
but the US has been involved in many questionable wars as well. Vietnam is a great example. Other lesser known military operations are Panama and Nicaragua. In the US these are seen as justified actions, but the rest of the world does not see it quite the same way. Just because the US is the most powerfull country, does not mean that it's opinion is more 'correct' than the rest of the world's. It only means it's opinion is more enforcable.

Re:Scary

[slux]

Americans making arrogant remarks about the French not fighting for their country really make my blood boil. There were 210,000 french soldiers and 350,000 french civilians killed in the second world war.

They were in the unfortunate position to be direct border neigbors to the Germans, I doubt Britain would've lasted either if they had been a similar situation.

The USA had a significant part in ending the war, no doubt. But that was only after the Japanese dragged you into it in 1943. Before that USA was content with letting the rest of the world fall under Nazi rule as long as they wouldn't try conquering their country (isolationism).

Meanwhile, the French and British (and the rest of europe) was under war for all of 1939-45. I find it somewhat disappointing that almost every movie is mostly about the american involvement and can only imagine how much more the european soldier has had to gone thru with enduring war over twice as long.

The French weren't cowards, Hitler just had a very strong army. On the other hand, the Americans were a bit slow to take part at all.

Had to be said. By the way, I'm not French. I'm Finnish.

Re:Scary

[Anonymous Coward]

In America, war is avoided up to the point where the cost of not going to war is higher than the cost of going to war.

I stongly suggest you take a real history course.

Re:Scary

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess you have shit between your ears.

Re:Scary

[antifoidulus]

Um, seriously, check out the glut of Japanese games about fuedal Japan. There is a reason the Japanese tend not to make games about WWII, they lost, and most Japanese seem to want to forget the whole thing ever happened. However, games about th e wars of the Shogun and Daimyo etc are very popular, because it's easy to glorify that type of war.
Gah, people like you almost make Sean Hannity look sane.......almost

Re:Scary

[david duncan scott]

Hey, it was my Dad's war, not mine. All those black-and-white wars tend to look alike after a while. :)

Re:Scary

[Radius9]

This is off-topic, but I have to agree with your statement. In addition to what you said, during the buildup before the war, it was the French that were screaming bloody hell about Germany, and how Germany was not to be trusted. The British and the US (although primarily Britian, the US had little to nothing to do with the war at this point) kept letting Germany slide on violations of the rules imposed on them after WWI. Unfortunately, the French were unwilling at the beginning to go at Germany alone, partly due to faulty intelligence and effective propaganda by the Germans on the state of their army. By the time the French were ready to fight the Germans on their own, Germany was far too powerful. It wasn't until Churchill was elected in Britian that they stopped conceeding to Germany.

Re:Scary

[hermit7323]

The main reason why people are saying this is messed up, is because they are advertising this game as a serious, war-based game that will depict the horrors of war. Yet, when they advertise it in emails, they talk about getting it on with a chick, and how awesome it will be to blow the hell out of charlies.

Re:Scary

[rsilvergun]

There is no way that a game can simulate the real fear of dying that soldiers face, or losing a best friend, or family member.

I understand Acclaim was working on this when they went under. It was gonna tie in with Turok 4 or something.

Re:Scary

[Lord_Dweomer]

There's no reason to bring BF1942 into this. Its a game, but its not like they take it over the edge. Its realistic in many aspects, but its not meant to highlight the ugliness of war, but rather the skill involved.

And the new BF:Vietname goes a step further. Have you heard the VC lady on the loudspeaker in the camp on some maps? She says things like "your government sent you to die", and other VERY realistic phrases. Creeps me out every time I play on that map as an Allied troop.

Re:Scary

[Minna Kirai]

It wasn't making light of the war,

Yes it was. Not quite as bad as F-Troop, but still humiliating to watch today. "Combat in Color" and MASH were more respectful.

"ain't those Nazi's stupid

The 2 German characters, Klink and Schutz, were not Nazis. The show depicted Nazis as dangerous and intelligent compared to them. Indeed, some episodes had the Nazi SS threatening to take over Col. Klink's job, which would've ruined Hogan's spy plans.

I've never played Battlefield 1942, so I can't speak for it.

It's fairly evenhanded and non-glamorous, for an action game. It portrays soldiers on all sides equally, and unlike some games, doesn't make it seem like the USA singlehandedly saved the world. In various missions, players can control German, Japanese, Italian, Russian, British, USA, or even Gaullist French forces.

However, the follow on Battlefield-Vietnam product skipped an opportunity to do some education. Civilians wandering into infantry battles wasn't an important feature of WWII, but it was an important factor in Vietnam. They should've tried to add some non-aggressive characters inhabiting the maps, with a (minor?) penalty if you accidently attack them.

Re:Scary

[Fred Or Alive]

A slight correction, Pearl Harbour was in December 1941, so the US did go into World War 2 slightly earlier than 1943. But it would've taken some time for America to move it's armies around[1] and get into major combat.

But some Americans on forums are really obnoxious about their contributions to the World Wars. The US was important, but the US didn't single handily win the World Wars. It gets really annoying, along with the rest of the anti-Francism.

[1] Let along it's leggies.

Re:Scary

[Anonymous Coward]

You fucking Euro-trash are all the same. Back in WWII, you guys were begging us to pick up our guns and save your asses. We didn't want to get into it. When we were dragged into it by Japan, we didn't just take out Japan, we decided we could help you out a bit too. Fast forward to present. Now, you guys are trying to force us to NOT go to war. Wait, do you need Iraqis or North Koreans banging on your door before you and your fucking pathetic UN 'allow' us to go to war?

Re:Scary

[Anonymous Coward]

you are right. we were a bit slow to take part maybe. and i agree we must acknowledge that a lot of french soldiers sacrificed their lives in WW2.

but your argument is also undercut by the fact, that when the french government did fold, they were quite complacent in accommodating the germans. At least a good portion of jewish people will agree with this statement.

On what merit can i make such a bold statement?

"...admit that the state bore a heavy share of responsibility in the mass round-ups and deportations of Jews, as well as in the property and asset seizures that were carried out with the active help of the Vichy regime." ~ Jacques Chirac 1995 - current French President

The French can be forgiven, but their transgressions not forgotten, so please don't try to make it as simple as that they were "in an unfortunate position". That's no excuse. Poland were in an unfortunate position. Russia were also in an unfortunate position. Unfortunate positions don't excuse complaceny. And the current French President said just as much, so this isn't a rant of an "arrogant american" either.

Re:Scary

[thrash242]

I think games which respect and tribute the subject matter are fine. Call of Duty was a good example, IMO.

War games are *not* always about the US beating somebody up. Trying playing a few more.

Yay, let's take another chance to bash America, right?

Re:Scary

[merdark]

War games are *not* always about the US beating somebody up. Trying playing a few more.

Yay, let's take another chance to bash America, right?

I admit my bias against America. But there seriously ARE a ton of games where you play an american soldier. This is maybe not surprising, since most wars since WWII seem to primarily involve America: Vietnam, Gulf, Afganistan, Iraq (I don't consider bombing Kosovo a 'war').

Re:Scary

[Chess_the_cat]

I agree, but personally, I think making any *game* out of real historical wars is wrong.

I'm not sure how else to say this but you're being a bit of a pussy aren't you?

Another problem with war games is that they are *always* about the US beating somebody up.

Really? Even Rome: Total War? Even Rise of Nations? Even Warcraft? Even Worms 3D?

Re:Scary

[AvitarX]

They really should of had some the civillian characters as enemy forces with signifigant penalty for killing the wrong ones.

(the no existant civilians you said should have been in there that is).

Re:Scary

[Lisandro]

Off-topic, but true. I always get a chuckle off the french jokes here in Slashdot, but some people actually take them seriously.

Like you said, no one denies the *huge* impact of the USA in WWII, but the rest of the world also exists, and most of it was involved and did their fair share. Saying the French "didn't fight for their country" is both ignorant and insulting.

Re:Scary

[merdark]

Rome Total War? Even Rise of Nations?

These are ancient wars. I don't count these since these countries don't exist anymore.

Even Warcraft? Even Worms 3D?

Umm...these are fictional. The topic was war games involving current countries. At least I figured the current countries part was implied.

Re:Scary

[ultramk]

You do realize that the US is not the only 'good guy' in wars like WW2? In fact, the US only jumped into WW2 near the end.

Well, you could also say that the war wasn't near the end at all, until we jumped into it.

Without the US involvement, most of Europe would be speaking German right now. Including France, including the UK.

It was a choice to become involved. It came late, perhaps, but it was the right choice. Does anyone disagree?

(rant)

I suppose the thing that amuses me about this discussion is, so many (mostly western) Europeans think they understand the US because they see american films, or american tv, or watch fox news or something. The US is an incredibly diverse country. Those of us in northern california are really nothing like southern californians, much less someone from the east coast. There is no way in hell you've experienced a realistic crosssection of our society through the media pinhole you have available to you. And yet, making these broad, stereotypical generalizations of americans is perfectly socially acceptable. I swear to god, you see an Oliver Stone film or two and you think you know everything about this country.

Hell, you forgot that a lot of us weren't even born here. Or if we were, our parents weren't. You don't know me. You don't know my family, my friends. How is it that you think that you do?

(/rant)

Ah... ignorance. It lives everywhere: on both sides of every ocean, it seems.

m-

Re:Scary

[Maserati]

That was France 1.0, the Monarchy Edition. We're up to 5.0 now (4th Republic) and QA has really been laying down on the job of late.

Re:Scary

[Maserati]

Ummm. No.

France and England both failed to take any steps, even so much as a public statement, against Hitler when he was rearming Germany. England was doing a bad enough job that one could make a case that the Franch weren't expecting any support. But that situation puts the burden on France to develop an effective defence. The Naval Agreement between Britain and Germany in, oh, 1935-ish formalized a breach of the Versailles Treaty. The 1930s saw some crass stupidity in European geopolitics, which goes a long way towards explaining why the was a true Coalition against Hussein in 1991 - agressors must be stopped dead at their first move. Half-measures and appeasement get millions of people killed.

Churchill became 1st Lord of the Admiralty on September 5th, a few days after the start of the war. He didn't become Prime Minister until the 10th of May, after the debacle in Norway. He spent his pre-war Parliamentary career crying for armaments against Germany.

And the French were never ready to fight the Germans on their own. An antiquated force structure with inadequate air support and poorly deployed armor defending a fortress system with its left flank hanging in the air on the Belgian plain is a recipie for disaster.

I'll recommend Churchill's own words on the subject. Volume one of his History of the Second World War: The Gathering Storm is a very good account of 1919-1940 from his point of view - note this last carefully, but the record backs his account. The full 6-volume history is recommended reading on the war as a personal account at the highest levels. It's also an excellent example of rhetorical writing in the classic sense. Churchill made his living as a writer after all.

Re:Scary

[Maserati]

The 'last word' on Vietnam, fo me, is a bumpersticker reading "Vietnam: We were winning when I left". I saw that and decided to just STFU on the topic henceforth.

McCain is telling the press pretty much the same thing: Get Over It, We Have a War On NOW.

Re:Scary

[thrash242]

Well, many such games are made in the US, so it makes sense. Just off the top of my head, however, in Call of Duty, you play as British, Russians and Americans (always against the Germans, however).

In the Close Combat series, you can play as either allies or Germans.

Most games are from the perspective of the country where they're made, for pretty obvious reasons. But there are many games where you play as people from other countries, on both sides (even against the US).

And I wouldn't say that most wars since WWII involve America. There are about 15 different conflicts (though maybe not "wars") going on in the world right now last I heard. There have been quite a few since WWII as well. It's just that most well-known ones (at least to Americans) involve us.

Re:Scary

[Echnin]

So then of course any stereotypes about France surrendering in WW2 (which is a resentful thing to say as it ignores the massive casualties and fierce resistance movement) are invalid, because that's version 4.0, the 3rd republic, right?

Re:Scary

[daveashcroft]

i deny it.

Impact yes.....*huge* i is debatable. US involvement didnt "win" the war as is portrayed by the US media/holywood....what is certain however is that it probably shortened WW2 by several years. Without american intervention the war would likely have carried on until nearer 1950.

Re:Scary

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you know who the Vichy regime were? Do you know what was happening in southern France? Do you realise that hundreds of thousands of French troops were captured in battles in southern Belgium and northern France, forcing the current French government to surrender for lack of an army? No? I didn't think so.

Re:Scary

[Anonymous Coward]

Impact yes.....*huge* i is debatable.

Germany controlled continental Europe, had pushed Britain into defensive cocoon, and while being impeded by the russians,that was still an offensive front so there was no way they were losing Europe period. so please, explain me how america getting involved wasn't *huge*.

And btw without the supply line America provided, there would be no french resistance, or actually any resistance anywhere on Europe for that matter, so again, how was their contribution not *huge* ??

without america intervention, Hitler would have probably had an easier time taking out a Britain without a supply line, and then could've focused ALL efforts on the russian front. so yes, maybe the war carries on till 1950...
gives brits and french more time to learn to speak deutsch.

Re:Scary

[Anonymous Coward]

"*always* about the US beating somebody up."

Get out more. Play a little Desert Combat (US vs Iraqis, evenly matched). World War 2 Online (Battle of France). Desert Rats vs. Afrika Korps. Red Orchestra. etc. . . Heck play any map in BF42 and it's NOT the US "beating" someone up, it's an even death match.

Yes, there are plenty of FPS, single player modes where the US is the hero (I'll even ignore COD, where the protagonist is US/British/Russian). Call that making the most of the market, whatever. The truth is, a game where the Nazi is the main character will not be a big seller.

You are spouting stereotypical anti-Americanism. Fine, good for you. Whatever makes you happy.

But the current gaming scene is far from the John Wayne - Rambo world that you make it seem.

Now mod me down for being an American. Sheesh.

Re:Scary

[jackbird]

D-Day came significantly after the Germans were shredded in the east at Stalingrad and Kursk, and the rout of the Wermacht was most certainly not an 'offensive front' after those 2 battles.

The lend-lease program and supply convoys made a huge difference, but those were both in effect before Pearl Harbor. Although heroic, I'm not sure the French resistance had any real strategic impact on the war, so I'm not sure I follow you there.

America getting involved was certainly huge, but in no way did the US simply step in and win the war for Europe, and the Russian people (20 million of whom died during the confilct) deserve perhaps the largest share of the credit.

As for Japan, the US certainly did win that front almost singlehandedly, but the 'war-shortening' dropping of nukes was almost certainly a signal to Stalin to stay the hell out of Japan as much as they were an actual attack; as relations were already cooling to cold war levels by that point.

Re:Scary

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, redneck. Go back to fucking your mom.

Re:Scary

[bonkedproducer]

Yeah, like Call of Duty (a game of the year winner) and one of the bigger WWII game sellers - it was only about the US, oh - and the Brits, and the Russsians...

And the fact that the majority of developers happen to be in the USA has nothing to do with this I'm sure.

Sorry, my sarcasm knob is stuck at 10 this morning.

Re:Scary

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree with not having war games based on real wars.

I've become more interested in history from playing these kinds of games than reading a textbook. I much prefer games that are historically accurate, however.

As for games being "rah, rah usa", I completely agree with you. I'm non-US and I believe most gamers are. It's really annoying when the developers make it look like USA is the best place to live(which it's not), and that Americans are the smartest(my ribs are hurting from laughing so hard) people.

Re:Scary

[Anonymous Coward]

uh dude read the fucking post again. He isn't criticizing the French for surrendering. He was criticizing how they outed the jews to the germans so easily AFTER they surrendered.

Surrendering is one thing. Helping the nazi's carry out the holocaust is something else.

Re:Scary

[ripsnorta]

I suppose the thing that amuses me about this discussion is, so many Americans think they understand the rest of the World because they see American films, or American tv, or watch Fox News or something. The World is an incredibly diverse place. Those of us in Europe are really nothing like Asians, much less someone from the Middle East. There is no way in hell you've experienced a realistic crosssection of our various cultures through the media pinhole you have available to you. And yet, making these broad, stereotypical generalizations of World citizens is perfectly socially acceptable. I swear to god, you see an Fox News broadcast or two and you think you know everything about this wonderful planet.

Re:Scary

[ultramk]

I suppose the thing that amuses me about this discussion is, so many Americans think they understand the rest of the World because they see American films, or American tv, or watch Fox News or something. The World is an incredibly diverse place. Those of us in Europe are really nothing like Asians, much less someone from the Middle East. There is no way in hell you've experienced a realistic crosssection of our various cultures through the media pinhole you have available to you. And yet, making these broad, stereotypical generalizations of World citizens is perfectly socially acceptable. I swear to god, you see an Fox News broadcast or two and you think you know everything about this wonderful planet.


The thing is, there are plenty of us here who aren't like that. That's my point. ...or are you being willfully dense? Is this just flamebait, or are you trying to engage in an actual productive exchange of ideas?

Like I said, ignorance abounds everywhere. The US certainly has its share, but no more than everywhere else.

Please, there's been enough hyperbole.

m-

Re:Scary

[ripsnorta]

The thing is, there are plenty of us here who aren't like that. That's my point. ...or are you being willfully dense? Is this just flamebait, or are you trying to engage in an actual productive exchange of ideas?

No, not just flamebait. Perhaps some, bit not all.

The point that I was trying to make with my reply was that your rant goes both ways. There are so many Americans who have no idea that the world is far more than the pinhole view that they see on their media. As an Australian living on the East Coast of the US, I was astounded by the number of people who asked me about Kangaroos roaming the streets of Australian cities, and who had no idea about the size of the country. I've seen on more than one occassion, on the news and weather, Australian cities in the wrong position on the map. It's certainly not a small proportion of the US that is ignorant of the rest of the world.

You've also got to realise that America 'promotes' itself to the rest of the world through Hollywood. You are in effect telling us what you are like through TV and movies. Since you are correct that ignorance abounds everywhere, can you blame people around the world for believing what they are being told by the US?

I think also that much of the rest of the world is pretty much sick of the US media telling them how much they've done for them. Sure, WWII would have been a lot more difficult (if not impossible) to win without the assistance of the US, but you guys didn't just march in and save the day. Without Britain there would have been nowhere to launch the D-Day invasion from. Without the French Resistance much valuable intelligence would have been missing. Without the Russians, Germany would have been undivided and a much stronger foe. Australians in North Africa (The Desert Rats) harried Rommel, and in the Pacific also fought the Japanese. And those are just small parts of the contributions of the other Allied nations.

Hollywood would have us believe that the US fought alone, or that the US won WWII. They didn't, the Allies won WWII.

Re:Scary

[Frizzle Fry]

I agree, but personally, I think making any *game* out of real historical wars is wrong.

Do you also think that movies and books about real wars are wrong? Or is there some reason that movies can better "simulate the real fear of dying that soldiers face"? I can't think of any.

Stupid Publicity

[clarus]

Is it just me, or is this a bad attempt at trying to gain sales numbers by being "as cool GTA3." I think that perhaps the gaming industry is taking itself too seriously. It certainly can be proven that a bad banned book gets read a lot more than just a bad book, and if they can stir up trouble, it might just stir up their sales.

--clarus

Think of the children!

[Anonymous Coward]

Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children?

Re:Think of the children!

[TheLink]

You sure that's a good idea? Ask Michael Jackson.

Re:Think of the children!

[dougmc]

Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children?

Apparantly somebody is. I'd never heard of a `mama san', so I googled for it. Apparantly it refers to a woman who works as a hostess at a bar, but it seems to also mean a geisha or a prostitute.

In Japanese, adding -san to the end of a name is a sign of respect, but in this case, `mama san' is not a nice thing to call somebody. Though I'm not sure why Japanese terms would end up being used for the Vietnam war -- totally differerent countries, different cultures. Though perhaps it's just American stereotypes -- `Japanese, Vietnamese -- what's the difference?'. Dunno.

Looking at some of the war pictures, the mama sans did cleaning and such for the soldiers, and some had sex with them too. And from some of the pictures, the girls were often as young as 13 or 14.

Assuming I'm correct in what I found, somebody certainly was thinking of the children.

Re:Think of the children!

[austad]

Get a job hippie!

Re:Think of the children!

[Boronx]

Sure. The trick is, you just don't lead them so much.

Re:Think of the children!

[arkanes]

I'm not a liinguistics scholar or an expert on military history, but I'm guessing the history of "mama san" is something like this: "Mama" is derisive/insulting slang for a woman in the US ("Hey, hot momma!", etc). Many US soldiers came to Vietnam by way of Okinawa (There was, and is, a major US military base there and it was used for staging deployment into Vietnam). In Okinawa, the local Japanese would address soldiers with respect "-san", and the solders would associate that with asian people. Add a dash of "all them squinty eyes look the same to me", and you get mama san.

Joking about it now ...

[isolationism]

... Seems like a precusor to, "And that's the way it actually happened," 20 years from now. Which do you think kids will associate with better -- the history book they didn't read, or getting to pillage and rape in a village in glorious 3D? :|

Seriously?

[ioslipstream]

"Before the gaming industry can be taken seriously"

Games taken seriously? Gimme a break. Why would you want that? Lighten up, games are escapism.

Re:Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well if they can be taken seriously, they'll be more than that.

Re:Seriously?

[thrash242]

I take quite a few games seriously. They can be works of art, not mere diversions. I'm sorry for you if you can't see that. You must be playing the wrong games.

On the other hand, there's nothing wrong with a good fun game that's not that serious from time to time.

right,

[6pak]

that's just TOO BEAUCOUP!

Pretty sad

[solojony]

How sad, that depicting women who have to sell their body to invading soldiers to get food or other goods is becoming a joke... I have no problems with the tactical meaning of a war which can be reduced to rules to a game (read The Art of War if you don't think that war hasn't a game-like aspect), but trivializing social impact of wars like that is going too far.

What's next, husbands beating women at The sims 3 and getting points for it?

What is worse, is that games like Manhunt that depicts a brutal *FANTASY* get more bad press than a game that depicts REAL SEXUAL ABUSE laughing at it. It makes me feel sick. I'm against any kind of censorship if you are going to show it, show it like it is, it's cruel, it's sad, it's something everyone should be ashamed of. Show it at a game or at a movie, but don't come to me saying than screwing mama-sans at the base camp is fun like some wicked holiday camp for kids with killing and raping included.

Re:Pretty sad

[philbert26]

What's next, husbands beating women at The sims 3 and getting points for it?

But if it happens in a game, then it's OK according to Slashdot conventional wisdom. We are all smart enough to tell reality from fiction, and playing these games will have no effect on our minds, unless the games are made by the US Army, in which case they are evil brainwashing tools designed to turn us into willing agents of neocon imperialist aggression.

Re:Pretty sad

[Anonymous Coward]

Stupid - God forbid we actually show what reality was like. Pretty sad indeed. Why don't we bowdlerize all of history to fit a cleaner view of human nature!

Of course, there is no excuse for Manhunt.

real horrors of war?

[TheLink]

Uh realism is overrated in games.

Hands up who wants to play a soldier that's air dropped many miles away from the actual site due to various reasons ranging from "plane got shot" to "bad weather"

And then having to hike all the way for hours to the actual site and then getting your leg blown off in the first 10 seconds of the firefight. Then spending years in a PoW camp eating weeds[1] and some nondescript gruel.

[1] Apparently someone mixed ground up iron nails and weeds/leaves into the rations as a vitamin supplement while a PoW.

swift boats

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope that game has swift boats.

Re:swift boats

[Anonymous Coward]

+1 insightful

The content is nothing new. The realism is.

[huchida]

There have been plenty of games about 'Nam in the past-- Platoon on the NES, Nam 1975, etc... But it's hard to get riled up over 8-bit sprites. Now that games are much more immersing and realistic, they also run the risk of being unsettling if they don't handle

Two games that come a little close to crossing the line IMO are Black Hawk Down and the upcoming S.T.A.L.K.E.R.

For the one or two who aren't aware, in the former, you're a U.S. soldier in Somalia defending villages and U.N. caravans from warlords. Maybe I'm touchy about race, but something just isn't right about the context-- too recent?-- and the fact that all of your enemies are black. It just feels... wrong.

S.T.A.L.K.E.R. is another I'm not sure about... A fps where you're fighting monsters who grew out of the radiation in Chernobyl. Considering the hundreds of thousands who were affected in horrible ways by the accident-- which wasn't that long ago-- this on e also feels a little... wrong.

But I'll still play them if they're good games. And I really don't know what the answer is. I like a game that feels realistic, but I have the feeling if they made games that emulated completely what it's like to go to war they'd be miserable and unplayable. The first rule would have to be no saved games, no do-overs, no medic kits-- when you get shot, you're crippled or dead. And that wouldn't be much fun at all...

AMAZING... Utterly Amazing...

[still_sick]

Slashdot is usually a bastion of free speech. Hell, we've got the YRO section specifically dedicated to censorship and whatnot.

I can't believe how many posts are saying this game "goes too far". This game. When ManHunt first came out. It seems Slashdotters have no problem saying which games should not be allowed to exist.

I've got bad news for you - kids. Being in favor of Free Speech and Freedom in general means DEFENDING both the things that you agree with, and ESPECIALLY those things that YOU find offensive.

You people make me sick.

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire

Re:AMAZING... Utterly Amazing...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just to point out, there's a huge difference between thinking/saying that something goes too far or shouldn't be said, and actually acting on that feeling. While there are a great many things that I personally feel shouldn't be said, I will never lift one finger to prevent people from saying them. And really, being in favor of free speech means defending a person's RIGHT to say things that you may or may not agree with, not defending the actual things they say.

Re:AMAZING... Utterly Amazing...

[Talrias]

No, you have it wrong.

Defending freedom of speech does not mean you are defending what people say, you are defending that they are legally allowed to say it.

This by no means suggests that saying it is a good idea - which is what these guys are arguing. They aren't arguing that people who say this kind of stuff should be locked away etc., they are saying that the people who make these games probably shouldn't (because it's rather immoral and unethical), but they can if they want to!

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -- Voltaire

"Just because you can say something, doesn't mean you should." -- Me

Re:AMAZING... Utterly Amazing...

[still_sick]

I was waiting for somebody to make this argument.

Censorship does not START with a law being inacted against saying XYZ.

Censorship STARTS with someone saying "Saying XYZ goes too far" - without qualifying the statement further.

You want to say "This game is disgusting, deals with subject matter in a way that I cannot agree with." that's fine. Whatever.

But using the phrase "... Goes too far" (Direct quote, look up - way up) is implying that some unwritten rule of what's acceptable has been broken. If you want to use that or similar phrases, but still support free speech, you MUST qualify that statement further. (ie. "This game goes too far. I do not think it should be consored, but I still find it disgusting.".

All it takes to start down the slippery slope is for one guy to say "This goes too far.", and a few more to agree with the literal meaning of the phrase.

Re:AMAZING... Utterly Amazing...

[Anonymous Coward]

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire

i agree whole heartedly...

but...

"The greatest threat to freedom is the absence of criticism." ~ Wole SOYINKA

those who say the game "goes too far" are those critics.

I haven't played the game myself so i'll reserve my judgements until i've actually experienced it myself.

But i also know with freedom comes responsibility. It is our fundamental right to say anything we please without fear of censorship.

But it's also our responsibility to ourselves, that we execute those fundamental rights with reason.

"People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid." ~ Søren KIERKEGAARD

Re:AMAZING... Utterly Amazing...

[Talrias]

The KKK (or groups like it) have been around in the United States for about one hundred years, I'd reckon that most people think what they say is extreme now and think it goes too far, but I still don't see any laws preventing them from saying what they say.

I hear the phrase 'slippery slope' on Slashdot alot, but it's a pathetic argument (being a logical fallacy). There are plenty of extremist groups which express their right to freedom of speech in the US, who are still allowed to say it even though what they say may be unethical.

Re:AMAZING... Utterly Amazing...

[NonSequor]

So are you saying that people who use the phrase "goes too far" are going too far?

Re:AMAZING... Utterly Amazing...

[still_sick]

I hear the phrase 'slippery slope' on Slashdot alot, but it's a pathetic argument (being a logical fallacy [datanation.com]).

Wow - did you even read the link you posted? Do you have any clue what a logical fallacy actually is?

What YOUR OWN link is saying is that the way to refute a 'Slippery Slope' argument is to show how the huge consequence does not necessarily follow from the initial step.

Slippery Slope arguments are perfectly valid - EVEN ACCORDING TO YOUR OWN LINK.

Re:AMAZING... Utterly Amazing...

[Talrias]

Yes, they are valid sometimes - in this case, no.

1. Game produced which has some rather tasteless material.
2. People comment that the material is tasteless.
3. More people agree that this is very tasteless and request laws against this kind of stuff.
4. Laws against tasteless material brought in. Freedom of speech destroyed.

This is your great slipperly slope argument (which hasn't happened FYI). Now let's look at a real life situation of far greater magnitude than a computer game:

1. KKK founded ~100 years ago, starts hate speech against blacks (and others).
2. KKK popular for 20~ years.
3. KKK wanes in popularity.
4. Civil rights movement turns public opinion against KKK. Hate speech from KKK still exists.
5. Now - KKK thought of as racists, still deliver hate speech.

I don't see any slippery slope there. There's hundreds of other groups which deliver hate messages which most people would agree is, at best, tasteless, but I don't see any laws stopping them from delivering their message.

Re:AMAZING... Utterly Amazing...

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a difference between freedom of speech and stupidity.

Just because you can, doesn't mean you should do something. Frankly, if a game needs to run ads like this, it's very likely that it sucks anyway. "Our gameplay sucks, so let's get Sex and Violence for the truck". Take Manhunt. Sucky game, bad graphics, bad story, and sells just because it's breaking moral conventions.

In the end it hurts those games that use some Sex and Violence in a way it at least adds to gameplay (i.e. GTA).

Idiots like these guys give all the industry a bad name.

Re:AMAZING... Utterly Amazing...

[Minna Kirai]

The KKK (or groups like it) have been around in the United States for about one hundred years,

No. 100 years ago was 1904. The KKK goes back to before 1840.

Fun fact: The KKK was founded in response to a group of abolitionist terrorists that went around in black robes with pointy hats.

Re:AMAZING... Utterly Amazing...

[Talrias]

I was referring to the "second" KKK (the one restablished during WW I), so around 90 years. I wasn't really interested in looking it up, but you made me do that now. :)

Chris

Re:AMAZING... Utterly Amazing...

[thrash242]

Honestly be allowed to say what they say, *unless* they are actively urging people to commit violence (which IIRC is illegal in any case) against a minority.

I think that people have a right to not like a particular group and even talk about how they don't like that group, but the moment that they specifically urge violence, it becomes illegal.

Disclaimer: I'm not a member of any of this sort of group, nor am I racist in the least. I just think that no matter how unpopular or morally reprehensible to most people, everyone should get to express their views.

Re:AMAZING... Utterly Amazing...

[BetterThanCaesar]

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -- Voltaire

Voltaire never said or wrote that. It was Evelyn Beatrice Hall.

War games can be great teachers of history

[SmallFurryCreature]

In theorie that is. Most western people will have no real idea what warfare is like. I am one of the last people to be drafted in Holland so most younger then me won't even know what a rifle feels like. Not just the bloody size of it, we trained with the FAL, but how bloody impossible it is to do anything when you are constently supposed to keep it with you.

To many guns are not real and war is not real. You can see an excellent example in many young americans whose response to vietnam is that they should go back and finish the job. TV and movies have made them believe that they could have won and that is was the hippies that made america withdraw.

Make a realistic war game and people will at least get a real fast lesson in what war is really really like. No med packs. No magic armour. No "secret" weapons. Just you, a rifle designed by someone behind a desk, grenades wich hurt you just as easily as the enemy, friendly fire and of course the enemey. You die, you die.

Want to know what real war is like? Well real war does not allow you to retry the mission from the latest save point.

Just as motorist organisations use "drunk" driver simulations to safely teach the folly of driving a good war game can tell you the folly of war.

A good vietnam game would tell the story from both sides and not be afraid to be extremely controversial. America was defintly not the good guy in vietnam. Considering the amount of civilians killed you can not come to any other conclusion that they must have been deliberate targets.

A realistic vietnam game could never be made since it would not sell. Oliver stone made 3 vietnam movies. 2 showed the americans as "heroes". One did not. Guess wich one failed at the box office.

WW2 games are plentifull and many allow you to play both sides yet none reflect the true nature of WW2, the rounding up of civilians and the transports to the extermination camps, the shooting of prisoners of war. The punishment details against cities and towns.

Maybe china will make a game showing vietnam from the communist side.

Re:War games can be great teachers of history

[thrash242]

I agree with most of your points. I think that making blatantly unrealistic games based on a war (especially one in living memory) kind of trivializes it. I think that Call of Duty is an example of a war-based FPS that doesn't, although it's not perfect. I know that unless I'm actually in war, I will never understand it, and thus don't pretend to. I know a lot about details and facts (being a military historian), but I haven't experienced it. That's why I like (realistic) war games, since the good ones kind of put you there. It's kind of similar too how I like horror. Good war movies (and hopefully games) make you feel uncomfortable at the very least.

As far as the true nature of WWII being about the holocaust, I'm not sure. That certainly happened during WWII, but I don't think it was part of the experience of most of the soldiers (from any side). Obviously a game is not going to be made where you play a deathcamp guard or the like, but I would like to see a game where you actually liberate a camp (see Band of Brothers for a very well done scene like this). This would have to be done very seriously to convey the horror of the situation, and if it wouldn't be done right, I don't want to see it at all.

I think the difference between Vietnam and WWII is that the average soldier saw or took part in warcrimes, prostitution, drug use, and other "bad" things (the first being the only really bad thing, IMO). Most German soldiers in WWII were fighting a war, and many were not even Nazis. The Allies who liberated camps saw the horrors, but before that, they were just rumors, for the most part.

The Russians did some horrible things to the Germans that they conquered, but I doubt that will be portrayed in a game. Nor what the Japanese did to the Chinese in WWII.

Re:War games can be great teachers of history

[pommiekiwifruit]

Maybe china will make a game showing vietnam from the communist side.

Didn't they have a war or two between vietnam and china after the americans were kicked out?

Actually not a bad game

[Anonymous Coward]

The issue actually isn't with the game. The summary as written is unclear.

If you read the article, they're complaining th at a fairly serious game influenced by famous literature and movies on the subject is being sold as a piece of exploitative tripe.

It doesn't matter if you DO make a serious, well-thought out game... the marketing hacks won't sell it that way.

wargames

[Clover_Kicker]

You're right that wargames sell better if the player can use American troops.

There are noteable exceptions, like the massively sucessful Panzer General, which only allowed you to play as the Germans. If you played skilfully, you crushed continental Europe and Britain before the Americans even joined the war. The optimum plot line had you invading America.

The Eastern Front is a popular wargaming setting. I love the Russian/German tank battles of Combat Mission and Close Combat.

This game is already out on the warez scene

[Pluvius]

I hear that it's not very good, but the people who say that are likely stereotypical twitch gamers, so take that with a grain of salt. I haven't played it yet, but it sounds a lot like Vietcong, which was pretty good.

Anyway, this article just proves that marketing people are idiots. If that means that the gaming industry doesn't take itself seriously, then just about anything else that involves marketing doesn't take itself seriously either.

Rob

War in Europe - American entry

[Pentagram]

I think this confusion arises because most of Europe thinks of WW2 as mostly being the war in Europe. VE day was in May 1945 (69 months, also in my head).

I think (could be wrong about this) that the first (direct) action by the US in Europe was in Operation Torch in November 1942 (about 39 months after the "start" of the war).

So, by this reckoning, the US did not join in the war in Europe until well after half-way through. This was also after the crucial battles of El Alamein and Stalingrad -- hence the common European viewpoint that the US's participation was less significant compared to the US's point of view.

Re:War in Europe - American entry

[david duncan scott]

Well, I've met a few Americans who've said that WW II began at Pearl Harbor, so I suppose reciprocal tolerance is in order.

Still, I'd hate for the English, for instance, to forget that Prince of Wales was lost in that other war, just as Americans forget the above-mentioned Reuben James.

Of course, the Russians make a good case that they won the ETO while the rest of us held their coats (and then turned on Japan and beat them into submission in a single day.)

Re:War in Europe - American entry

[Anonymous Coward]

As a *World* War, wouldn't we count from the European declarations of war to the Japanese surrender?

Re:War in Europe - American entry

[Minna Kirai]

Well, I've met a few Americans who've said that WW II began at Pearl Harbor,

Oh really? What's the President like in person?

(This year he claimed that both WWII and the "War On Terror" started with an unprovoked airstrike against US soil. Wrong on both counts, actually...)

Re:War in Europe - American entry

[Minna Kirai]

the common European viewpoint that the US's participation was less significant compared to the US's point of view

Participation can mean things besides actually fighting. Those Europeans should remember what Charles de Gaulle said on the topic:

1. La France n'est pas seule ! Elle n'est pas seule ! Elle n'est pas seule ! Elle a un vaste Empire derrière elle. Elle peut faire bloc avec l'Empire britannique qui tient la mer et continue la lutte. Elle peut, comme l'Angleterre, utiliser sans limites l'immense industrie des Etats-Unis!

Re:War in Europe - American entry

[david duncan scott]

Being a good American, I speak no other languages, and Babelfish gives me:

France n'est not only! It n'est not only! It n'est not only! It has vast Empire behind it. It can make British block with l'Empire which holds the sea and continues the fight. It can, like l'Angleterre, to use without limits l'immense industry of the United States!

but I think i get the gist of it, and yes, the immense industry, and some escort ships and aircraft, were in the war earlier than 12/41. In fact, there was some grumbling about "undeclared war" on Roosevelt's part.

FYI - Slippery Slope & Logical Fallacy

[still_sick]

From http://www.fallacyfiles.org/slipslop.html

This type is based upon the claim that a controversial type of action will lead inevitably to some admittedly bad type of action. It is the slide from A to Z via the intermediate steps B through Y that is the "slope", and the smallness of each step that makes it "slippery".

This type of argument is by no means invariably fallacious, but the strength of the argument is inversely proportional to the number of steps between A and Z, and directly proportional to the causal strength of the connections between adjacent steps. If there are many intervening steps, and the causal connections between them are weak, or even unknown, then the resulting argument will be very weak, if not downright fallacious.

Taken seriously, huh?

[JasdonLe]

All this from an anonymous person quoting someone named RedassedBaboon.

irony (FMJ)

[nmoore]

Those writing the press releases sound---intentionally or not, ironically or not---like military recruiters. One could argue that, by lauding the joys of killing and the pleasures of Mama San (how racist-sounding can you get?), Eidos is starting the immersion before you even begin playing the game.

All movies about the horror of war have to deal with this problem in one way or another. How do you simultaneously:

• accurately portray the mindset of warriors trained to kill without thought,
• get the audience to identify with the characters and become involved in the film,
• without desensitizing the audience to the horrors they are seeing?

One way to do this is to go ahead and let the audience get desensitized. Then, when they are high on blood and ammo, punch them in the gut with something they didn't get desensitized enough for. To some extent, that's what happened in the last part of Full Metal Jacket. The problem with this approach is that individuals have widely differing responses to the tactic. A substantial part of the audience will be over-desensitized and miss the point entirely; others will remain sensitive throughout, and think of the film as glorifying violence even when the intent is quite the opposite. I suspect something similar will happen with this game. The additional interactivity only makes identification happen that much faster.

Re:irony (FMJ)

[Minna Kirai]

Those writing the press releases sound---intentionally or not, ironically or not---like military recruiters.

No they don't. No real US recruiter has ever tried to make combat sound fun (especially not in official publications). And they CERTAINLY never advertised "Join the Army, and meet exotic, inexpensive whores!" The Army is always careful to use euphemisms, and to cast themselves as reluctant warriors.

Re:The content is nothing new. The realism is.

[Minna Kirai]

It just feels... wrong.

Good. It should feel wrong. If the game helps USA voters think harder about sending an all-white paratroop to kill a few "bad guy" Africans in the middle of a large, heavily-armed African town, so much the better.

Considering the hundreds of thousands who were affected in horrible ways by the accident-

You're off by a factor of 50x there, if not 500x.

Um, if I had kids...

[rsilvergun]

they wouldn't be playing graphically detailed and realistic war games. At least not until they're old enough to distinguish reality and fantasy. It's called Parenting. Of course, I'm too lazy to acually do it, which is precicely why I don't have kids (it's got nothing to do with me posting on /. on a Saturday night, really :D ).

Re:The content is nothing new. The realism is.

[thrash242]

Whether it's too recent or not is up for interpretation, but as far as the enemies all being black, that's just what happened. It was in Somalia, after all. It wasn't because of race, though, it was because of politics (war being an extension of politics by other means). I mean, in Vietnam games, all your enemies are Vietnamese. In any WWII Pacific game, all your enemies would be Japanese. I can play any of these games without having any sort of ill will toward a specific race just because they make up all the enemies in a game or a real war.

I'm sure very few if any serious games about any Middle East conflict will be made soon, with everything going on now. Notice how any game (that I've seen) about terrorism lacks Arab/Muslim terrorists. There's that console game where you kill terrorists and beat up Bin Laden, but it's gotten terrible reviews and is basically a joke. A serious war game in such a situation, I'd be interested it, although it might still be too recent.

Re:The content is nothing new. The realism is.

[Anonymous Coward]

mods please ban this person he is a known troll

Japanese War Games

[pommiekiwifruit]

Um, Capcom is a Japanese company. And its hit games 1942 and 1943 are about the player as a lone US pilot shooting up loads of Japanese planes.

Re:Japanese War Games

[clifyt]

If I recall the game, the Japanese versions of the games had a Zero shooting up US and Allies planes.

I need to look for that on MAME again one of these days...

Black Hawk Down

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there a bonus game where you get to sexually abuse your step-daughter when you get back home?

This game is stirfried dogshit

[carcosa30]

Plays like a crappy console port. Maybe it is. The motion is impossible to get used to, slow, non-responsive. The terrain is outdated.

The graphics are interesting, and "filmed" through a grainy lens.

But the combat plays somewhat like a Vietnam-themed Painkiller; enemies pour endlessly out of tunnels until you destroy the tunnel. Your squaddies seemingly never get hit. You can stumble drunkenly (since you can't really run fast or maneuver) through clouds of bullets that should slap you down faster than a fifty cent crackwhore.

For single-player experience, Vietcong KILLS this game. Utterly.

For multi, BFV is king of the genre.

Eidos had better go back to the drawing board with this one. The fact that it has rape isn't going to save it from the bargain bin, then the dustbin of history where it will fester along with "Custer's Revenge" for the Atari.

Feh on this. Certainly glad I didn't pay money for this shitty pig in a poke.

Are you inbred?

[Anonymous Coward]

Quote: Before the gaming industry can be taken seriously by the world, it has to be taken seriously by itself.' How very true."

Which part of GAME do you not understand?

Gaming Industry? You mean the gambling side? Oh wait you mean video game industry... Got it...

If you take your GAMES so seriously don't be suprised when they are no longer fun. Games are not documentaries, history lessions, or teaching tools. They are games. Games are fun to play.

Dorks like you are the same retards that complain that FPS games arn't real enough so when they make a "serious" FPS game you bitch when you died from a single bullet and don't respawn. Then the game uninstalls and you never get to play it again. Hows that for serious? Not a fun game is it. They are games, they should Never be taken seriously and the more "SERIOUSLY" the game industry is taken the worse the games get. I can't think of a good game in the last 5 years with the exception of Counter-Strike and last I checked the team that developed the MOD wern't taken seriously at the time they made it. Video Games are more closly related to art then manufacturing, you create games, you don't manufacture then and tards like you try to apply some sense of "Adult Responsibility" to the concept. Think like and artist and not like a business dweeb and perhap, just maybe, we can get back to using terms like "Imaginative", "Innovative", "Fun", "Surreal", and "Captivating" instead of another 10 years for re-hashed FPS, RTS, and Homer-sexual class RPGs involving a rebellious teen with F'ed up hair and an identity crisis while trying to save the world from some villian that want's to become God! Black and White was nothing more then a rip of decades old virtual pets that harken back to the days of playing L.O.R.D.S and Ursurper on a local BBS. Nothing new there. Yep the images are sure pretty but the core is more of the same. My rant is over. Bish-Mod me down leftie I rule forever!