Slashdot Mirror
Iraq Game Sparks Outrage, Soldiers Have Mixed Reactions
We recently discussed news that Konami will be releasing a video game based on a 2004 battle in Fallujah. Many people have now had a chance to react to the game, and there has been a great deal of criticism voiced over the game's choice of setting. A group of families of soldiers who lost their lives in the war questioned "how anyone can trivialize a war that continues to kill and maim members of the military and Iraqi civilians to this day." Others criticized the game's glorification of the "massacre." Conversely, some soldiers and veterans have responded with optimism, hoping the game can raise awareness of the realities of war. Dan Rosenthal, Iraq veteran and long-time gamer, worries whether Konami will be able to do justice to the experience. Eurogamer posted a related story about the controversy over increasingly realistic war games.
..to all those other FPS war games where simulated humans get shot and killed. Clearly. Seriously tho, this is a case of someone feeling like the game is somehow directly targetting them and having a moan about it. Should we be mindful of veterens families? Sure. But just because a game is set in a warzone that someone you know happened to be near or involved in, doesnt mean said game is intended to slap their faces.
If a war game is realistic, they will push people to avoid war if possible. However pain, disability, and choices that are bad either way (someone's firing from within a crowd, do we return fire ?) and their consequences (getting sued for saving 99% of the protestors (this means a few innocents dead by your bullets, for the idiots) for the terrorists' guns), they might actually get a realistic view of a bad situation.
But what are the chances of that ?
A bigger problem is unrealistic war games. If people start believing, even a tiny little bit, that you do actually respawn, that will be a sad day for world peace. Of course the same goes for people believing "god" rewards killing women or "unbelievers" after death. And the same goes for systems that encourage doing nothing at all very strongly, not showing the consequences of refusing to go to war when confronted with certain situations.
It's called "too soon". Although it probably also has to do with getting to historically accurate.
Although the family in question does have a point, "When our loved one's 'health meter' dropped to '0', they didn't get to 'retry' the mission."
Instead of getting to retry you should switch bodies with another member of your unit, that would detrivialise things a bit and give a better sense of what death does. Actually I can't believe no war game ever used that idea before..
You just got troll'd!
Just because it's a video game doesn't mean anyone should assume it can't be a serious, respectful work of art.
The only thing that's been announced is the game's setting.
Put simply (very simply) - WW2 games are tolerated without outrage because it's an OLD war, a long-gone war that doesn't have any resonance with most people these days. It doesn't get portrayed in the media every day because, unlike the Iraq war, it's over and done with. There's very little for people to associate with in WW2 because we're not continually reminded of it in our daily lives, or when we read/watch the news.
Games set in unresolved warzones are a tricky subject simply because the fight hasn't finished. They're still way too raw among people's minds, whereas WW2 is condemned to the history books and a decreasing pool of veterans. Once the war in Iraq is finished, and enough time has passed for reflection and consideration about how it went, a game released about the war probably wouldn't result in as much outrage. "Time heals all wounds" might not hold up so well with people, but it works well enough for video games.
I always noticed how they seem to know what the soldier would feel if he were alive. Families of soldiers still with us, who have lived through this experience, don't say anything, because the soldiers would tell them to shut the hell up.
I just remember how people used to treat Vietnam Vets before First Blood came out. My uncle credited that with a change in viewpoint that allowed him to feel human again. Considering it is the largest money maker in entertainment, maybe this game will allow people to get an idea what happens in combat, and what decisions you have to go through, split-second, every day.
For those "offended" by this, the game play is based on first-hand accounts by VETERANS. I think they have more of a right than any civilian to speak for themselves. If you are offended, fine. Everyone is allowed to have an opinion. It's in the constitution I swore an oath to protect and defend. Don't go dragging out the names of the dead, however, to support your own sensibilities.
I just hope they don't allow you to "save game". You don't get that option in war.
and as I recall Black Hawk Down was an entertaining movie first, and then a video game. How exactly is this different? I think the excuse "because we're still in Iraq" is exactly why this game needs to push on to release date.
Well, there are always people like a friend of mine:
Who volunteered for deployment AGAIN, and is now disappointed that he isn't shooting people.
Who was part of the initial invasion force.
Who was probably changed by his experiences and now feels civilian life is boring and dull.
Oh well, I wonder if he'll still not regret it if he loses a limb or something ..
No, I am not an English major. My posts are subject to typos and incorrect grammar. Do not expect perfection.
People who 'outrage' at the realism and graphic nature of art, in a hope that such a reaction does anything but reenforce the purpose of its exhibition, obviously have no idea what the point of art is. So... maybe someone should tell them. The point of art, is to evoke emotion. The more you 'outrage' at art, the more effective said art is. You cannot really argue with art by outraging at its exposition. All you do is affirm its effectiveness and the reason we have a need for such art to exist.
If gore and realism are repulsive... then how is depicting it 'glorification' of some situation in which it takes place? People play the games because it gets them close to something they normally would never get the chance to experience. I am more offended by the war movies of the 50's and 60's that took most of the gore and realism out of war. If you want to talk about glorification, THAT is a more fitting example.
If you want people to understand the ramifications of violent behavior, then censorship is very counter-productive. You protect noone by throwing a rug over the bloodstain. You simply doom people to repeat the same mistakes by taking from them the wisdom of experience, however detached such experience may be.
I think what offends the majority more than anything, is the fact that other people revel in violence. Unfortunately for them, humans have, and always will, find entertainment value in the suffering of others, most of all those that 'outrage' at things they do not have the depth to comprehend. Concepts like justice, which very few people have ever had much of any issue with at all, hinge on the administration of human suffering. Be thankful that we live in an era when there are more avenues available to satisfy our inate bloodlust than ACTUAL acts of cruelty.
For those "offended" by this, the game play is based on first-hand accounts by VETERANS.
And no one ever paints themselves in a better light than what really transpired?
I'm not offended by a videogame, but those guys obviously have a biased view of the events, so I'm a tad offended by your inappropriate use of quotation marks and by your flawed belief that a first-hand account is equivalent to an objective view of events.
You can't take the sky from me...
Tell me then, which WWII games lets you play a German soldier assaulting the Jewish ghetto in Warsaw?
The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head
Well, "all methods acceptable" is the true definition of war.
Ignorance and apathy are the two most dangerous diseases of our time, and very difficult to cure. Take the Red Pill.
~ awaiting spiritual enlightenment ~
Horse puckey.
Little boys have been shooting each other with imaginary guns since guns have been around.
Before then, they used to play with sticks and pretended they were sword.
But, no, let's not be killing each other in games. Let's [b]strategize[/b] instead. Go play some chess where the killing is abstracted and the point is to assassinate the king instead.
Let's not pretend that playing games that allow us to kill and defeat the enemy hasn't been with us since time immemorial and isn't a part of the human condition.
And that last quote about the "enemy." WTF? You don't think those guys were humans with families, either?
I'm a Vietnam vet, retired with 23 years of active Army service (mostly SF). I love games, and I've played a fair number of military related games (some Vietnam era, and many others).
Bottom line: games are for gamers. They aren't to teach history (although it would be nice, and many gamers prefer an accurate game). They aren't to teach ethics or sociology or psychology or international law. They aren't to benefit the victims or the survivors or the participants or the viewers. They're games.
Don't like the game? Don't play it.
Doh.