War (Games) are Hell and so are the Ads

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

War (Games) are Hell and so are the Ads

Posted by CowboyNeal on Saturday September 4, 2004 @03:45AM from the beyond-the-boundary-of-taste dept.

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."

25 of 111 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Scary by MikeSweetser · 2004-09-04 03:50 · Score: 4, Insightful

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
1. Re:Scary by 77Punker · 2004-09-04 04:00 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
2. Re:Scary by Blakey+Rat · 2004-09-04 04:40 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  Comment of the year
3. Re:Scary by merdark · 2004-09-04 04:55 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  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.
4. Re:Scary by merdark · 2004-09-04 05:15 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  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.
5. Re:Scary by david+duncan+scott · 2004-09-04 06:33 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  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"
  
  --
  This next song is very sad. Please clap along. -- Robin Zander
6. Re:Scary by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-04 08:03 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  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.
7. Re:Scary by merdark · 2004-09-04 08:15 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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.
8. Re:Scary by slux · 2004-09-04 08:21 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
9. Re:Scary by Radius9 · 2004-09-04 10:21 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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.
10. Re:Scary by Minna+Kirai · 2004-09-04 18:43 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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.
11. Re:Scary by ultramk · 2004-09-05 17:09 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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-
  
  --
  You catch enchiladas by picking them up behind the head and holding them underwater until they don't kick anymore -VeGas
12. Re:Scary by ripsnorta · 2004-09-07 09:06 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  Hollywood: The place good stories go to die.
Stupid Publicity by clarus · 2004-09-04 03:53 · Score: 2, Insightful

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! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-04 03:56 · Score: 5, Funny

Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children?
1. Re:Think of the children! by dougmc · 2004-09-04 06:13 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  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.
Joking about it now ... by isolationism · 2004-09-04 03:59 · Score: 4, Interesting

... 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? :|
Pretty sad by solojony · 2004-09-04 04:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

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? by TheLink · 2004-09-04 05:17 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
--
- Too many replies beneath your current threshold
War games can be great teachers of history by SmallFurryCreature · 2004-09-04 07:19 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

--

MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
1. Re:War games can be great teachers of history by thrash242 · 2004-09-05 08:03 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  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:AMAZING... Utterly Amazing... by Talrias · 2004-09-04 07:37 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.
Re:AMAZING... Utterly Amazing... by NonSequor · 2004-09-04 09:15 · Score: 2, Funny

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

--
My only political goal is to see to it that no political party achieves its goals.
War in Europe - American entry by Pentagram · 2004-09-04 09:46 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.
irony (FMJ) by nmoore · 2004-09-04 10:52 · Score: 4, Interesting
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.