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.
Yeah, those WW2 games are offensive too. That's why there are so many of them that hardly anyone complains about. Let's all stop playing FPSs set in a warzone, and make it all happen in a magic land with evil ponies that shoot lasers from their mouth.
If they think this is offensive, wait until someone makes a game where you get to eat babies.
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.
People are making a whole lot of assumptions about a game that hasn't even been released yet. Assuming for a moment that the game does not in fact glorify the war, but instead brings to the front the realities of it, why is this a bad thing? If anything, I'd say the American public needs to see what war really does, people need to know that there is a reason that "War is Hell", maybe if we saw what really happens we would be less likely to so carelessly throw people that volunteer their lives for their country into such a horrible situation. War should be the very last recourse in a diplomatic situation after all other alternatives are exhausted, war should be questioned hard and fought hard before it is declared. There should be no question at all whether it is a good or bad idea, such questions should be fully resolved before people are sent to kill and die. I know this position is probably ridiculously idealistic(ironically my CAPTCHA was "Delirium"), but I think that if this happened, the world would hopefully be a better place.
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.
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.
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...
I really don't think the Ferengi would get involved in a stand-up fight! They'd just buy the opposition, surely!
cmd-q.co.uk - some sort of stupid fucking internet bullshit
Well, "all methods acceptable" is the true definition of war.
Interview with 'Grandpa' on 12/6/07 about WWII and Gaming:
Ignorance and apathy are the two most dangerous diseases of our time, and very difficult to cure. Take the Red Pill.
~ awaiting spiritual enlightenment ~
The Wolverines aren't fanatics who snuck in from Canada, they're a bunch of unfortunate teenagers unwillingly pulled into the war.
The Wolverines don't bomb the church and markets in Calumet with the express intention of mass murder.
The Wolverines risk their own lives to save civilians rather than use them as human shields.
And if you want to compare the US to the Soviets, show me where we do this:
If you look past the obvious rah-rah patriotism, the message in Red Dawn is "This horror is what the Soviets do everywhere they occupy. Don't let it happen here." So please don't insult real or imagined freedom fighters by comparing them to religious fanatic terrorists (and yes, there is a difference as outlined above).
We want games to get better recognition as an art form, as a narrative form, or something of other social value. Covering contemporary issues (not just Vietnam or Antietam or WWII) is, in my opinion, a GOOD thing. We already have games like Call of Duty ("modern warfare": a very current theme to the game) which have good narratives, which seem like they could be pulled from either a Tom Clancy novel or from the news. (And yes, there's the R6 series which *is* from Clancy.)
The soldiers' perspective, whether told in the form of unsanctioned Youtube postings, blogs, memoirs, embedded reporters, or a video game, is important. We all say "OMG the horror!" when talking about war, but few of us know the horror. We need things that portray the brutality of war, in a way which is unsettling for the viewer. Saving Private Ryan's incredibly graphic opening was almost un-watchable, for me, and yet I consider that movie one of the best war films I've seen, for that very reason (among many others).
We need video games that transcend the "Yay let's kill some nazis/terrorists/aliens!" theme, and portray also the sense of loss, uncertainty, or hard moral choices that can come with war. So, you might spend one "mission" being ambushed in the streets, or calling for a mortar strike on the roof of the building teeming with terrorists. The next, you would need to go clear the mosque or apartment building that they were at, and deal with the civilian casualties.
The hard part is making a game which tells a story well, and conveys the emotions or messages that these soldiers want, while also making it Not Suck -- otherwise few will play it.
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.