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]

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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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

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.

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.

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.