Slashdot Mirror
When Does It Become OK To Make Games About a War?
The cancellation of Six Days in Fallujah seems to have stirred up almost as much debate as its original announcement. Given the popularity of World War II games, it seems clear that the main concern about a game focusing on modern war events relates to how recently they happened. Kotaku takes a look at some of the obstacles such a game would need to overcome to achieve broad acceptance.
"When approaching a game that realistically depicts a modern combat situation, one criticism that often arises is the subject of fun. Can a realistic military shooter be fun? According to Ian Bogost, that's the wrong question to ask. 'We use the word fun as a placeholder, when we don't even really know what we mean when we look for some sort of enjoyment in a serious experience,' he said. Fun and entertainment aren't mutually exclusive, especially when it comes to entertainment based on real-world military conflicts. As Bogost explains, fun isn't the key word in this situation. 'It may not be possible to make a realistic war game that is fun — war is not fun — but it is possible to create an experience that is informative, appealing, and startling in a positive way.'"
It's pretty much OK to do anything you want to do unless you plan on pissing off the vocal minority.
I'm fairly certain the majority of us really don't give a damn what the next guy is going to do.
It's that small percent who have an extremely horrid tact and shout much louder then necessary.
"You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
I think time is only a minor factor in this case. The level of "OK-ness" of making a war game is also highly correlated with the popularity of the war IMO. In World War II we seemed to have a clear enemy who was clearly in the wrong. It was cause for celebration to defeat them at the time and thus it's OK to relive this defeat in the form of a game. The Iraq war is extremely unpopular, and it's unclear whether we really "won" anything as a result of it.
... where every single person who participated in it is dead.
I think Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare is a perfect example of a modern war game that hasn't gotten too much flack.
Common sense is not so common.
The problem wasn't the controversy, it was that Konami buckled. Anytime a company gives signs of backing off, you'll have a bunch of groups charge in like pack animals to set their agenda. Jack Thompson has been trying it for years. He would have loved that type of weakness in companies. So Konami pretty much blew it.
You can't tell me beating up prostitutes in Grand Theft Auto is better than a modern day war simulation. For every person saying "but that's someone's son" in regards to the war game, you could say "but it portraying someone's daughter in GTA"...
If recency were such a controversial thing, you couldn't have documentaries of events newer than 20 year old, let alone what is happening in the world today. The subject matter isn't all that different from any other game of its type, and I'm sure the soldiers in the "soldier groups" protesting the game have played their fair share FPS/GTA/Survival_Horror, so there probably is a fair bit of hypocrisy going about trying to make this or that topic sancrosanct and taboo.
How would a GERMAN point of view in a war game be like. You might say that several all ready did offer you the option to play from the german side, but not on the box cover. Look at the art for games with two sides like the venerable Close Combat series. It is pretty clear who you are supposed to be playing. That you can also optionally play as the germans is just a small side note.
But what is a game like Call of Duty etc had a german theme and worse, did not pretend that the german soldiers did not know what they were fighting for. Notice that most potrayals of symphatetic germans conveniently accepts "ich habe es nicht gewust" for fact. But it was the soldiers who rounded up the undesirables and put them on transport. Who took civilians hostage and executed them.
How would a ww2 game that showed that be received?
Not so good I think.
for that matter, how about a vietnam game in which the americans get to torch houses and kill unarmed women and children? Hell, even make a vietnam war game where the americans are LOOSING. Or a dutch war game about the "police" actions in Indonesia, just to show this is not an anti-america thing.
War games are acceptable as long as they show a clean version of a war with a goodie and a baddie and you are the goodie and the goodie is nothing but good and does nothing a baddie would ever do.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
WWII has been beat to a pulp.
That's because WWII is easy: Nazi's == Evil. It's satisfying to kill Nazi's because deep down you think of them as inhuman monsters. It's worth noting that the only FPS genre currently more common than WWII is alien invasion, I think it's pretty clear what that says about our culture's current level of xenophobia.
How about you first start out by not developing a game based on an on-going war. For example, had the technology existed, I would not be developing a WW2 game in the middle of f-ing WW2!!!
Life is not for the lazy.
How about when kids born during are old enough to play? Seems like a safe bet ;)
Is it possible to make a realistic war game?
I vote "no" due to the fact that you really can't get hurt and probably won't develop PTD after watching your buddy's face explode in a shower of blood and bone, leaving you to wash his brains out of your mouth.
Not to mention that most wargames don't involve the player having to realistically deal with other people on their own side comitting war atrocities - never mind comitting them themselves.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I'd also argue that accuracy is also a key element. "Old School" wargamers took pride in analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of each side, presenting the simulation with at least a semblance of impartiality.
In this case, however, the game is biased, jingoistic and unrealistic. And, as you observe, it supports a cause that has been largely rejected.
The first part will have alienated the old school wargamers, the latter part will have alienated a lot of gamers who are not far right-wing.
I guess, ultimately, that's the true test of the OKness of a game - if you alienate the audience, it's not ok.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Buy a copy of Battlestations Pacific. You can play as the Japanese side. I think you even attack Pearl Harbor. You definitely can do Kamikaze attacks.
I'd be rather pissed off if I couldn't play as both sides in a historical wargame I'd bought. I certainly wouldn't mind playing as Rommel, whom I admire.
These games aren't really about approval of one side or the other, but about re-enacting history and thinking about alternative outcomes. For example, I've often imagined that Lee won at Gettysburg, not because I wanted the Confederacy to win, but because I'd have liked to see him win it.
I wouldn't say that the people who are Civil War re-enactors on the Confederate side are racists. They are just fascinated with the (as I am) and love the history. Same goes for video games.
"by that I mean people who don't sit on slashdot all day wondering why everyone else isn't building robots" DECS
Now as I mentioned before, people are illusioned into believing that something is extremely important. The reality is that most of the controversy is simply caused by stupidity. Sadly, I'm wrong when I say it's caused by stupidity; it's usually caused by willful ignorance in the form of religion. Though I do admit that there are some caused by bigotry, idiocy, and normal ignorance as well.
Think about it - What are the big controversies today in America? I'll list some for you:
Those are all caused by religious institutions; the pope hates them all. and there's such opposition to these issues because, guess what? They hurt their feelings. And they remain controversial because of bigotry. But there are some very minor controversies out there that aren't caused by Christianity; gun control and the war on drugs, for instance. These issues are caused by sheer ignorance.
How does this relate to the topic in hand? It's hard to say. Games based on real, current wars aren't controversial because of people's bigotry, idiocy, stupidity, or willing or unknowing ignorance.
In fact, I'd go so far as to say that this type of game isn't controversial at all. What it is, however, is stigmatic. People have different views on the war, and because not everyone agrees with it, and even though it's a subject that people can have differing opinions on it without getting upset, it instantly becomes taboo.
So the real problem is that people and organizations have become so incredibly afraid of being politically incorrect, they're not even willing to go along with anything that people won't agree on. Which means that the shelves of the game stores will continue to be filled with endless sequels, because someone might be offended with anything new, and in an overly-sensitive global society, that's enough to get your game banned.
To sum up what I was trying to say, current-war games aren't controversial, but are simply too new of an idea.
I hope my message got across well; I'm actually doped out on sleeping pills right now. I'm not even sure that I wrote about the point I was trying to make.... I'm a very confused man at the moment.
P.S. I think I meant to say earlier that controversies are caused by intolerance. Ex: Fable was controversial for being able to play a gay character.
Remember that one of the game publisher decided to cash in on the term "Shock and Awe" and realize that there was a public back lash at the attempt to cash in on the Iraq war. I think people need to realize one thing. This is not a freedom of speech issue, they're a private company and if they tick off the people that generates their profits, they'll probably do what it takes to protect that revenue source.
Fun and entertainment aren't mutually exclusive, especially when it comes to entertainment based on real-world military conflicts
Eh? Could you run that one past me one more time? It would make sense if you said something like "Fun and education aren't mutually exclusive", but as it is stands it is a tautology.
When it comes to war, what is acceptable and in good taste depends on whether it allows people to come to terms with what has happened. WWII ended a while back, AFAIK, and people in Europe are still trying to come to terms with it - which is why in UK there is hardly one night when there is not at least one programme rehashing the events, or a comedy series or whatever. In UK we haven't even quite come to terms with WWI yet, and perhaps one shouldn't really expect to get to the state where it is just the subject of idle fun.
In my opinion, coming to terms with events of this magnitude means facing up to all aspects of what has happened, and for Falluja we aren't even close to that yet; this is not just a question of showing a bit of tact and respect for the tens of thousands innocents that were allegedly slaughered by Americans troops, but also a question of our integrity and moral standing. On a personal level I find it revolting and deeply disturbing that a bunch of soldiers - possibly henchmen in a horrifying crime - are now trying to milk the story for what it is worth. Talk about military honour.
And before anyone begins to spout nonsense about "the global anti-Americanism", let me point out that since you elected Obama, things have changed a lot in the world; not because we think he is going to do what we want him to do, but because we believe that he genuinely represents the American people, and we trust and respect the American people.
Its totally subjective. Influenced by cultural issues, maybe, but you can pretty much define what is fun for you. You could ask if is moral, ethic, damage sensibilities, etc... but fun, that goes with each one.
Actually, it wasn't that simple.
1. For a start you have to understand that what the bulshit Hollywood propaganda presents as a one "German army", was actually several branches, some of which weren't army at all. The SS for example was a paramilitary organization, _not_ a branch of the German army, and none too loved by the real army (the Wehrmacht.)
Second, even Hitler understood and accepted that not everyone has the stomach for his racial purity solutions.
The rounding up Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, etc, was done by volunteer groups -- the euphemistically called Einsatzgruppen or Sonderkommandos (special units) -- recruited from the SS, SD, Gestapo (all under Himmler, btw) and local volunteers, _not_ from the army.
So, yes, most German soldiers didn't know jack squat about the extermination, and never rounded up anybody.
If you want to see an example of how the real army felt when ordered to do some atrocity: when a German sub was sunk by airplanes while trying to tow to safety the survivors of a ship it torpedoed, Hitler was furious and ordered that subs machinegun all such survivors in the future. Dönitz argued that doing anything of the kind would cause a massive morale drop, and basically pretty much refused to do it. Hitler actually backed out of that idea. Subs did stop trying to rescue survivors, though.
2. But to get back to the rounding up, you also have to understand another aspect: people are easier to round up when they don't know they're going to end up dead. After all, if you'll be killed anyway, what's your incentive to surrender to the guys with guns? At least running away or fighting back you still have a small chance to survive.
And you can see in the Warsaw uprising what happened when people realized that they're dead in the long run anyway.
So the "final solution" was actually kept somewhat secret, because, you know, the less people know about it, the less the risk that one of them will write to their former friend in Minsk to say stuff like "dude, hide before these guys come haul you to the gas chambers" and that guy tells _his_ friends about it, and it goes downhill from there. You have plenty of historical examples from elsewhere of exactly this kind of thing happening. E.g., the Gunpowder Plot in England failed when some conspirator tried to warn some other catholics to not be in the parliament on that day.
The people rounded up and the population in those cities, were routinely told they're being merely deported to some other province, and encouraged to take whatever they think they'll need in a new home. (Incidentally, that ended up as loot for the nazis.)
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
The difference between heroics and butchery. Fallujah was a Massacre. Hard to celebrate atrocity.
"Can it be fun" should be the first question asked when designing a game, through every step of the process.
And the answer for a realistic modern warfare game, is "Of course."
That nearly merits a "Duh".
You might as well argue that no american soldier knows the CIA tortures prisoners. That no soviet soldier knew about deportations to siberia.
Talk to some real germans soldiers when they are willing to let their guard down. The knew, just didn't want to know and sure as hell couldn't admit to knowing after the war.
When you are reading history, learn the difference between the one that is in the books written by people who wanted germany back in the civilized world as fast as possible and the real history.
The final solution was to big to keep hidden. But hey, keep dreaming baby.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
(Did we win in Fallujah? For how long? When we leave will it erupt into civil war? If so, can we still say we won?)
It'll probably be like Vietnam. US soldiers will win all the battles and then US politicians will decide the US has lost the war.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
It all depends on how much of an emotional toll said war has taken over the public you're selling your game(/movie/book/whatever) to.
An interesting huge thing that factors into that is who we perceive the "good guys" were in the real war - if we do so at all.
I don't really have any emotional connection with, say, either side of the wars Troy had.
Being a Jew and an Australian/Israeli I find it hard to watch films looking at the conflicts "my side" had a part in, tenfold so when viewed from the "wrong side".
There were several such works done over the years, and it's very interesting to see how the public accepts (or doesn't) a work of art (devoid of political message, I'm not referring to media created as propaganda) - such as Avanti Popolo (Israeli indie film that follows a squad of cut-off purposeless Egyptian soldiers through the desert as they're attempting to return home, simply painting them as human), or, if you want to go more extreme, stuff like Das Boot.
Das Boot was made some four decades(!) - that's just short of three generations - after WWII and the holocaust, and people - worldwide, not just holocaust survivors & families - had a huge problem accepting it (I relate, I watched it with a distressing sense of unease, my own family was cut down in the holocaust from some 50 people to under 10), mainly because it humanized the Nazis (and it did nothing provocative a-la 'what about all the good things Hitler did' statementa, it just followed a bunch of young (Nazi German) sailors on a U-boat whose main concern throughout the movie was getting back home in one piece, with pretty much piss-all politics or nazi agenda. Just human beings and immediate hardships common to us all. Acceptance? Rather bad (though the amount of controversy-spawned publicity they got was rather good... "as long as they spell my name right...")
To answer your question - depends on how loaded the conflict in question was. Depends on which side it's presented from. Depending on whether the people it's presented TO have made peace with the historic conflict or not... And that can take a good while.
As a curiosity relating closure on conflicts, here in Australia we devote a day each year - ANZAC day - to paying our respects to those who fought in our wars. There is a solemn march on this day, and in it march the veterans (or those related to them etc). Keep in mind we've taken an active part in nearly every conflict America was involved in since the start of the century.
And here's the kicker - it doesn't matter which side you fought on. It doesn't matter if back then you were "the enemy". Having come, myself, from a country that lacks anything even remotely resembling closure on past conflicts.
I really think achieving closure thus is a genuinely cool thing.
I've also seen it with US/Allied WWII vets doing same with their German and Japanese vets.
And if you've got that and you can avoid carrying a political message that'll de-label you as art and label you as a form of propaganda, you can popularize it in media all you want.
-
A lot of people whine about Americas Army because of the "realistically long" training that is required. However, I find that the game itself is as fun as any other FPS. If people whine about "war games", why not completely abandon FPS gaming all together. CSS is about fighting, in a war. BF2 is about fighting, in a war. BF2142 is about fighting, in a war. Unreal Tournament is about fighting, in a war. Any game that has teams, and guns, is likely fighting.. in a war.
n/t
Asymmetric warfare is hard to do in a game, simply because of balance. One side has helicopters, napalm bombers, artillery that can blow craters 30 miles away, the other side has ... umm ... beats me.
You can balance that on a strategic level, where you can make those high tech units hard to get (expensive or in short supply), where political pressure forces you to NOT do certain things (give the other side a 'safe harbor' where they must not be attacked), let the "home team" units move faster (because they know terrain and how to use it to their advantage) etc. But on a tactical level, like the average FPS game, how are you going to balance that? By numbers?
It's very hard to find a good balance here. Most games just drop the idea of balancing the realistic scenario and go for a generic "both sides have the same crap" balance.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.