Slashdot Mirror
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."
... 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? :|
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.
You may be right about the culture, though.
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!"
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
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
aterr - an open source threaded discussion board.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.