PDA

View Full Version : Video Games; a Insult?



ClockHand
02-23-2012, 10:54 PM
I believe we all know how insulting is Call of Juarez: The Cartel, making fun of a real issue just for the sake of an awful and distorted joke that over come us, even the most deviated person feels some kind of provocation with this game. But, Is this the only one? Hasn't the industry already made fun of really big and serious issues?

I think we should look no further than First Person Shooters (FPS) or just Shooter games; games like Call of Duty Modern Warfare (COD), Medal of Honor (MOH) and Gears of War (GoW) are enough prove that video games are becoming more insulting to real issues, like: war, killing and mass-murdering.

In COD we are rewarded for killing other soldiers (enemies), without even doing a sightly analyze of the moral weight of our actions and theirs; not just that, but the whole idea of "I'm a kick-ass marine who kill terrorist" is more a empowering charade that hides a patriotic and laughable reasoning.

And what about GoW? A game that not just encourage killing, but also it's brutality, not just about their dead but also your's. A suicide game about muscle mens, killing with chain saws, frag grenades, hyper beams and other brutal weapons just to satisfied a "hardcore" feeling from childish players.

I'm not going to blame all this brutality to those games, but they are, indeed, the best examples on how brutality is before game play and not the opposite. I'm not saying we should stop any form of confrontation with this subjects, even if its mean for joking (some time jokes are great to over come some issues, and if it done with respect and elegance, why not?), but the way these games, and others, have threat war is just insulting. Not just war, death or torture, but also political issues, sexuality, social problems, and so on. I believe that with this strong push from the industry to make games more cinematic, narratives and "story crafted", they are also making games more insulting, brainwashed and biased.

The whole Deus Ex: Human Revolution, was just about empowering someone to kill hundred if not million of soldiers, so at the end they ask you if you forgive the life of some few shitty people in a building (and your life too).

Is not like Megaman was a insult to our intelligence (and humanity), because it didn't explore the morality of killing other robots, but Megaman has never tried to be a "war game". Is not like Donkey Kong Country didn't explore in a better way our own savage nature, as being a genocidal primate that kills all the "lizard race" just to have some bananas; it was that Donkey Kong Country didn't meant to be a genocidal game. But COD, MHO, DE: HR, GoW, GOW and many others, do try to be war, killing and genocidal games (God of War, lets just kill all Gods, just because I'm childish angry character).

What I'm trying to say in here, I see that, with the industry growing with a commercial focus and more story pretentious, it will make the video games what our parents feared a long time ago. It will give rights to think "video games can brain wash kids" (trust me, when I see COD, I do believe they can give a biased view about war) and it will play against us (the self called gamer audience) to play what we want.

We laugh at how awful is Twilight and how awful is the people who read/watch that, but then we go to pick our control or keyboard to be in a mass murder game for our own joy.


It might sound kinda of a rant, but I want to see what you guys think. Is industry killing itself before it can take the diapers out? or Is this going to become a new era in gaming, where pleasing the "hardcore feeling" is more important than the actual subject the game is trying to hang of? And finally I'm crazy? I'm wrong for giving so much weight to this issue?

PD: I tried to write the best I could )=

Sylux
02-23-2012, 11:11 PM
I think Rainbow Six: Patriots will address these moral issues. From what I hear, the main antagonist is a sympathetic guy, one the player and main character can really empathize with.

GunZet
02-23-2012, 11:12 PM
I believe games like the ones you mention are just made for people with certain tastes in entertainment. I don't think anyone at Epic thought about mixing in real world issues to make a game that lives off brutality, they just wanted to make an awesome game. As for games like CoD and MoH that thrive off of skewing real world problems and making you a super soldier, it's almost the same reason that war movies will continue to be made, and reason #1 is that it's a good way to make sure you cash in on money, especially if it's an FPS.

But not all are bad examples. I mean, I won't lie, I like me some MW2, reason being? I stopped looking at it as a hardcore FPS, a game with a good story, and the fact that you're a one man army breaking all the rules a long time ago. I see it more as an arcade game for a quick buzz of fun; start game, get gun, see bad guy, pull trigger. I did a lot of Virtua Cop 2 in the 90's, and these are just updated versions of rail shooters. But then you have games that are based on real world problems, mainly wars, and they show you what that can be like as good as they can, aka the Tom Clancy series, ArmA, America's Army, and some other simulators.

And this didn't start with games. It started with humanity's love for violence in general, and making money off tragedies. Books, movies, then came games. We'd be alright if it wasn't for stupid people that do stupid stuff to damage the reputation of a relatively harmless medium simply doing what everyone else already has.

That's just my outlook on it.
(coming from a guy that loves chainsawing locust scum in half daily)

jubeh
02-23-2012, 11:28 PM
My favorite thing about video games is if you try to look at them critically gamers get up in arms and try to defend the game for no reason (http://gameoverthinker.blogspot.com/2011/11/episode-59-bat-slap.html)

Here's an article where Hulk talks about the evolution of modern warfare from something too to bat-shit insane. (http://badassdigest.com/2011/11/29/film-crit-hulk-smash-hulk-vs-the-bat-shit-evolution-of-the-modern-warfare/)

Here is KillScreen, the smartest game magazine around that nobody reads. (http://killscreendaily.com/)

I for one hope the industry crumbles to the point that I can put it in a paper bag and leave it burning on somebody's front porch.

GunZet
02-23-2012, 11:46 PM
I for one hope the industry crumbles to the point that I can put it in a paper bag and leave it burning on somebody's front porch.

*talks to you on Steam*

jubeh
02-23-2012, 11:49 PM
u mad

GunZet
02-23-2012, 11:56 PM
I ain't even mad. I just can't help but see that as a bit of a contradiction. See, Steam is a gaming platform, Steam is in the gaming industry, Valve is part of the gaming industry, and made Steam. If the gaming industry crashes, everyone suffers, even the ones that are doing the best they can to do good. So I dunno man, to see you using a part of the gaming industry, and then wanting it to crash and burn, I DUNNO MAAAN.

I wouldn't mind seeing the companies that don't give a shit about the people that buy their games crash, cause they deserve to (sorta like Bethesda counting on its dedicated fanbase to fix their post-release problems on just about every game, or the makers of CoD charging the price of a brand new game for a tiny map pack, and BS DLC in general). But the industry as a whole? No.

CypressDahlia
02-23-2012, 11:59 PM
This reminds me of Stephen King's essay on why people like horror movies.

The fact of the matter is that many of us acknowledge that games are just games, not political statements. Well adjusted human beings will not take CoD as a statement that it's okay to kill people without remorse. Just as people who watch horror movies enjoy them because they are acknowledging that the material is fiction, not because they seriously would enjoy watching people torn limb from limb.

Now as far as the "hardcore" feeling goes, yeah, it's dumb. Games try to be hardcore to the point that it's even tacky and juvenile at points.

jubeh
02-24-2012, 12:06 AM
I ain't even mad. I just can't help but see that as a bit of a contradiction. See, Steam is a gaming platform, Steam is in the gaming industry, Valve is part of the gaming industry, and made Steam. If the gaming industry crashes, everyone suffers, even the ones that are doing the best they can to do good. So I dunno man, to see you using a part of the gaming industry, and then wanting it to crash and burn, I DUNNO MAAAN.

Im gonna address this as if what I said wasn't a hyperbole and I seriously meant it.

Yeah I use steam but if it were gone, I'd use something else. If my toilet exploded, I'd dump in the trash can or something. If the entire toilet industry collapsed we all would. So what Im saying is one way or another we find a place for our shit to go.

GunZet
02-24-2012, 12:10 AM
I guess, man. Maybe I'm in the minority when I say the gaming industry isn't shit, rather it's the bigger companies that make the shit and fill the toilets up. It just seems to be a lot of haters that just follow around and hate the industry just because there are a lot of crackhead money hogs in the game, and if you don't hate it, you're an ignorant gamer or something. I wish Tripwire was bigger, cause they know what they're doing.

jubeh
02-24-2012, 12:15 AM
That is hardly the minority

GunZet
02-24-2012, 12:17 AM
Idunno man. There are sure a lot of dudes that run around going 'BAWWWW, GAMES DEEZ DAYS SUXORZ CUZ LIKE... WHY THEY NO REAL!?' And then you have people that are like 'GAMING INDUSTRY ES COOL, I MEAN, MODERN WARFARE 3!? SHIIIIIETTTT'.

Inksprout
02-24-2012, 07:05 AM
The funny thing about war games like COD and battlefield is I'm pretty sure they actually speak to soldeirs as part of the research when they are making the games. It leads me to question how the games actually end up the way they are. Surely the soldiers aren't saying tp the research team, "YEAH it was SO BADASS when I shot that one guy in the face!" or anything like that. I wonder if the players are somewhat misinterpreting the overall point of the games. Like Gunzet said, a lot of the time spent in gameplay, especially mulitplayer is like playing an arcade game. It doesn't really focus heavily on the story or the game, its just about the skill of shooting the 'enemy' and most people don't take it to heart as a message about war. I don't play this type of game much because I am baaaaaad at shooting but I have played the COD: Moder warfare 2 campaign. To me it didn't glorify war. The images of warfare that were presented were still horrific to me and sad. The fact that the game offer little in the way of moral choice (you always have to kill the enemies) in a lot of ways reflects the realities of war. Soldier's have to kill or be killed and can't necessarily afford to contemplate 'the enemy' as real people. They may not even agree or fully understand why the war is going on. The reason these games make you a lone soldier is probably partially to highlight this.
To be honest I think these games are popular because they have fun gameplay which has been around for a long time, not because they glorify violence and try to be shocking and insulting. If you step back from the 'fun' aspect you notice that these is more to it than just violence.

(disclaimer: As I said I haven't played many of these types of games, so feel free to not take me very seriously)

ClockHand
02-24-2012, 07:32 AM
James@ I knew you would post Hulk critics, I knew, and I love it.

I think Hulk and Game Overthinker say everything it's need to say for the sake of the thread. Video games are not taking a proper approach to the subject and so are making them offensive, in part is the consumer fault and the fault of the Industry, which have become an even less ethical Hollywood (one of the most horrible things), but I think we need to be more critical about the media we love and respect, at least if we want it to become better.

And about COD. The deal is that game mechanic does not make any coherence with the subject. If you want to aboard the issue of war, do it properly, not just in the story, characters and the development, but also game play mechanics. And this goes for most games that try to address "mature" issues (mature video games for immature audience).

PD: Man, I would love to play a video game like Apocalypse Now.
PDD: We well see again in 2 or 3 weeks.

CypressDahlia
02-24-2012, 08:08 AM
TBH I would hate a game that simulated war on a realistic level.

When the first BF3 trailer was released, I had a long talk with my room mates about how "realistic" FPSs can become before it just becomes not fun. Real war is stressful, tedious and unforgiving. Real anything is significantly worse than its video game counterpart. And I think most people know that. But like I said, people see CoD and think "this is a game". It's easily forgiven that it's not painfully realistic.

Inksprout
02-24-2012, 08:22 AM
I see what you are saying Clock, but I my point is that at least some of the time they are trying to use game mechanics to simulate real war. The issue is more about balance. Like cyp said, how do you make a game that is about serious subject matter and still make it interesting/exciting for the player, especially with a topic like war that in reality is totally horrific and not something anyone should take lightly. I think at the heart of the issue they are trying to approach these games from a mature perspective, and I think you can see it in the design and game mechanics, but I think its been almost lost largely because consumers themselves don't take war all that seriously. This is reflected in the consumer's take on games and also in the way the developers are making them. Remeber that for developers they don't always get the final say to make the game how they want. Producers and publishers are going to be pressuring them to make games that the public like. If gratuitous and thoughtless violence is more in demand than a thoughtful and mature take on war that is what will get made.
So essentially I think that the game we want, and the game the developers want to make (a mature, well made war game) is being held back by monetary issues and the wider consumer demands rather than any deeper disrespect towards the concept of war.

CypressDahlia
02-24-2012, 09:29 AM
I watched the GO's post and he's right on certain aspects, but when he took a jab at Resident Evil 5 as being potentially racist he lost a lot of credibility with me because the issue stemmed not from the implications of the game, but from the insistence on racial contexts from some people. There is nothing racist about placing Africans in Africa. Africans live in Africa. Also, they are zombie Africans that will kill you if you don't shoot them. The reason this was interpreted as "racist" is not because it is somehow unjustified or prejudiced, but because people INSISTED on a racial context for the gameplay. Resident Evil has always been about shooting zombies. Because the zombies are black does not change that, so why did the perception of gameplay that was identical to that in previous RE games change with the race of the zombies? It just doesn't make any sense.

Anyway, is "bitch" any more a gendered insult than "asshole" or "bastard"? I've never seen a female character referred to by either of those. I don't deny the sexualization of the characters, but the gendered insult thing is silly. Aside from that, GO is p. much right.

Regantor
02-24-2012, 10:11 AM
Eh. Honestly, if you were going to make a 'real' modern wargame, esspeically as an every-day footslogger, it would be 90% about staying in shape, cowering in cover and calling in airstrikes. That's just the face of real modern wars. Main battle tanks barely fire a shot in anger these days... If you want crawling around out of sight, catching your own food, sneaking up on enemies, and adapting to the enviroment, that's basically Metal Gear Solid 3. :/

Personally, I dislike the modern warfare games because every one that I've given half a chance has been piss easy and terribly made. The idea of shooting a hundred germans in the face remorselessly is ground that's already been pretty well covered by hollywood, so I don't really think I can see that as a seperate problem. It's a general public problem, and the extent of what 'good v.s. evil' mentality has led us to.

It's not that I'm having a go at 'arcadey' shooter games either; Earth Defence Force is fantastic. But it didn't in any way demand to be taken seriously. Kodos calling it a 'spider bukkake simulator' was pretty accurate. :3

Anyway. Yeah. At the end of the day, it's just a terrible irony that games about running around playing mr.amazing indestructable hero are considered macho, whilst well-written games that actually tax your abbilities are considered nerdy or childish.

GunZet
02-24-2012, 12:04 PM
See, this is the game industry we're talking about here, guys. The primary thing a game needs to be successful, is that it has to be fun, or it has to have its gimmick that makes it stand out from the rest. That can be realism, gameplay, story, person, whatever. CoD presents to people a cartoonified version of war, and represents more of a total anarchy with a few military words tossed in here and there to make it sound legit. Battlefield prides itself on being a bit more realistic in that you work better as a team, and bullet physics/drop that makes you think about where to place your shots. But you can still be that one man army and kill anyone without anyone questioning you.

So if a game wasn't fun, or didn't have a gimmick about it, what would it be? Life. You'd have your realism. Imagine getting busted in GTA. Well, you don't revive after killing a ton of people by wrecking. Their. Shit. No, you get arrested, and tossed in prison for life or put on death row. So I assume to make a game like that realistic, the system should totally delete your game off disk or HD if you're ever caught.
Or maybe if it's a modern warfare game, you have to watch out for IED's, suicide bombers, random attacks, etc. Imagine you're playing a game like this. You're halfway through the whole thing. You're at a cutscene where you're just riding with your buds, and boom! everything explodes and-
http://www.wallstreetoasis.com/files/images/Gameover.jpg
Except you don't see that. You see a black screen forever, as in real life you only have one life.

Just think about what you're asking before you say you want games to be more realistic, cause honestly, that would be the one move to completely kill the industry. I love realistic games, but we live realism every day, there's no reason to try and fully simulate that in the gaming industry. If you wanna know what happens when you go for realism of anything
http://img.brothersoft.com/screenshots/softimage/f/farming_simulator_2011_patch_english-443393-1298023419.jpeg
http://tale-of-tales.com/TheGraveyard/images/graveyard_scrn01.jpg

See, those are both simulators, but that's a genre of the gaming industry. Once again, some sell more than others because even though they're simulators, they're fun. So lemme see if I can find one fun thing about Farming Simulator 2011 besides laughing at all the wheat I'm mass murdering... anything? Nope. What about The Cemetary, I guess it's pretty fun walking to a bench, sitting, thinking about life, and walking back for $4.99, yes? No. Just go to Steam, and type in simulator, and pick one you like (besides Garbage Truck Simulator).
Granted simulators are made to simulate, and a lot of them not for fun, but for legit reason such as training soldiers, or flight sims, etc. But you gotta realize, gaming is primarily for fun, that's what I've always done it for. The fun, the adventure, the story, whatever. <s>I mean cmon, like the most realistic life sim I've ever played is Osmos.</s>

T1B3R1U5
02-24-2012, 01:48 PM
o_o *totally lost*

jubeh
02-24-2012, 02:16 PM
The funny thing about war games like COD and battlefield is I'm pretty sure they actually speak to soldeirs as part of the research when they are making the games. It leads me to question how the games actually end up the way they are. Surely the soldiers aren't saying tp the research team, "YEAH it was SO BADASS when I shot that one guy in the face!" or anything like that.

So I always figured most soldiers didnt like to talk about the awful shit they've seen on the battlefield and whatnot but my experiences say otherwise. One of the inventory supervisors at my job talked about "scoring kills" as if it were a game or something when he was in iraq. Not a bad guy by any means, but it seemed strange to me since scoring has an air of fun to it when I can't ever imagine killing being fun.

I also got insulted by a customer because I said the gore in mortal kombat was disgusting. He said something along the lines of, "I was in the army. I've seen shit!" without a hint of sincerity. He was literally bragging about watching dudes die (possibly).

My friend chris saw a guy's head get blown off while in iraw. He mentioned it casually like he was talking about his sister getting married.

I had a design class with a marine who got discharged for being "homocidal and suicidal" because he liked to rush headfirst into combat. The dude had crazy scars including one in his neck from a knife. I jokingly asked him if he stabbed the guy back, which was p dumb on my part. He went "yeah I killed the motherfucker."

CypressDahlia
02-24-2012, 02:19 PM
k, I just slogged through Hulk's article. It's a good article and all, but God the gimmick was killing me. Some things:

1.) His issue with gameplay. It seems like the general theme for the first half of the essay is that as long as there is some derived action (or objective basis) in a game, it cannot qualify as art. But doesn't he say, for a game to qualify as art, the actions simply have to be meaningful or have some meaningful implication? For example, slaying Colossi may seem derived and repetitive, but doesn't it bear significant meaning every time you do so? Just because the action seems derived does not mean it doesn't heavily complement the narrative, or is not plot-appropriate. He seems to be taking slightly flawed gameplay and trying to rationalize it as narrative incoherency.

2.) Memorization versus strategy. I understand he praises MW1 for its emphasis on memorization, but personally I believe there is a distinct difference between 'strategic' games and 'retention' games. For example if you played match two and memorized where the cards are, isn't it technically less strategic than coming up with a formula or making on-the-spot judgments to accurately predict where matching cards are. Memorization is merely the product of repeated trial-and-error. Technically, if you are repeatedly failing at a task as a method of attaining success, the game isn't really promoting strategic play at all, so much as it's forcing you to memorize specific scenarios and execute a particular set of movements. You go from level to level possibly having learned nothing of the overarching mechanics of the game. You simply learned how to beat level 1...and the process repeats until you beat level 2. The main facet of a well-strategized plan--having the room and ability to improvise, and to display mastery of the mechanics, not just the single level--is absent from trial and error gameplay.

I mean there's more but if I wrote anymore it would be impossible to reply to.

jubeh
02-24-2012, 02:26 PM
I get what you mean in point 2 but I dont know if he articulated it correctly since he doesn't really use any gamer lingo. What I believe he was trying to say was that mw1 was a well crafted corridor shooter with a mind for how to properly use your equipment where as mw2 was a bunch of open air set pieces where you hid behind shit for hours on end. If so I agree with him.

As far as point 1, yeah. I'm not sure I consider games as art but not because of their inherent nature of requiring gameplay.

Sylux
02-24-2012, 02:49 PM
So I always figured most soldiers didnt like to talk about the awful shit they've seen on the battlefield and whatnot but my experiences say otherwise. One of the inventory supervisors at my job talked about "scoring kills" as if it were a game or something when he was in iraq. Not a bad guy by any means, but it seemed strange to me since scoring has an air of fun to it when I can't ever imagine killing being fun.

I also got insulted by a customer because I said the gore in mortal kombat was disgusting. He said something along the lines of, "I was in the army. I've seen shit!" without a hint of sincerity. He was literally bragging about watching dudes die (possibly).

My friend chris saw a guy's head get blown off while in iraw. He mentioned it casually like he was talking about his sister getting married.

I had a design class with a marine who got discharged for being "homocidal and suicidal" because he liked to rush headfirst into combat. The dude had crazy scars including one in his neck from a knife. I jokingly asked him if he stabbed the guy back, which was p dumb on my part. He went "yeah I killed the motherfucker."

Yeah the only soldiers I've ever met that weren't completely like this were seasoned men, either long-time servicemen or men with extremely bad shell-shock. I blame video games and Fox News.

Inksprout
02-24-2012, 08:31 PM
So I always figured most soldiers didnt like to talk about the awful shit they've seen on the battlefield and whatnot but my experiences say otherwise. One of the inventory supervisors at my job talked about "scoring kills" as if it were a game or something when he was in iraq. Not a bad guy by any means, but it seemed strange to me since scoring has an air of fun to it when I can't ever imagine killing being fun.

I also got insulted by a customer because I said the gore in mortal kombat was disgusting. He said something along the lines of, "I was in the army. I've seen shit!" without a hint of sincerity. He was literally bragging about watching dudes die (possibly).

My friend chris saw a guy's head get blown off while in iraw. He mentioned it casually like he was talking about his sister getting married.

I had a design class with a marine who got discharged for being "homocidal and suicidal" because he liked to rush headfirst into combat. The dude had crazy scars including one in his neck from a knife. I jokingly asked him if he stabbed the guy back, which was p dumb on my part. He went "yeah I killed the motherfucker."

In light of that how can we say that these games are insulting to the reality of warfare? If the people who have been there treat it like that then I can't see it as any fault of ours if we make games that portray it in a similar way. People who have never been in a war can't really criticise those who have and say that they are describing it wrong. Perhaps what we expect a game about serious warfare from a soldier's perspective is very different from the reality of what soldiers experience, and the feelings these games create are much closer to the reality?

Sylux
02-24-2012, 08:35 PM
No because soldiers generally don't do the shit you do in Modern Warfare.

jubeh
02-24-2012, 08:39 PM
In light of that how can we say that these games are insulting to the reality of warfare? If the people who have been there treat it like that then I can't see it as any fault of ours if we make games that portray it in a similar way. People who have never been in a war can't really criticise those who have and say that they are describing it wrong. Perhaps what we expect a game about serious warfare from a soldier's perspective is very different from the reality of what soldiers experience, and the feelings these games create are much closer to the reality?

I didn't say any of that

Inksprout
02-24-2012, 08:44 PM
no but thats pretty much what clock was saying at the start of the thread.

GunZet
02-24-2012, 08:56 PM
No because soldiers generally don't do the shit you do in Modern Warfare.

What about the kill team? You know, those guys that were basically a squad acting on their own in Iraq, just killing tangos for the hell of it, and then posting their dismantled bodies on the net like achievements?

jubeh
02-24-2012, 08:56 PM
The whole Deus Ex: Human Revolution, was just about empowering someone to kill hundred if not million of soldiers, so at the end they ask you if you forgive the life of some few shitty people in a building (and your life too).

Wait I just saw this. Is that seriously what you got out of this game?

Inksprout
02-24-2012, 11:00 PM
@Sylux: I tend to look at game design as desiging an experience. So even if a game doesn't exactly replicate the real life actions it is emulating I would still call it accurate if it evokes some of the feelings of the real world experience. Game designers make up different game mechanics not only to make games fun but to try to capture the right feelings for the game. So while they may not allow players to play a totally realistic war game they are probably still trying to create a similar feeling experience to those described by soldiers. Unfortuneatly I'm not experienced enough with these sorts of games to really argue specifics, but I think its worth thinking of the distinction between designing an experience and designing an exact replica of warfare, and look at the games in that light.

jubeh
02-24-2012, 11:07 PM
Please don't let this discussion devolve into stating the obvious

Sylux
02-25-2012, 10:21 AM
Seriously games like Medal of Honor are the best portrayals of the brutality/futility of war. Only got half an hour into Hell's Highway because of the controls but the situation was the best war scenario I've had experience with gaming-wise. My best example of real-life shooting was playing Airsoft with my friends in the woods when some fucking psycho hunter starts shooting his real fucking rifle at us. And that was devastatingly scary atm. So no war is not like that.

GunZet
02-25-2012, 02:26 PM
The only way a game would be able to pull off even partially what real war is, is to basically turn the tension, fear, and feeling of futility up to 11, and still demand that you find a way to survive the whole thing.

Inksprout
02-25-2012, 07:36 PM
I was just saying that in reference to what Jubeh said about talking with soldiers.

jubeh
03-02-2012, 11:24 AM
This article is p cool. It's about a soldier that has a problem with the way soldiers are depicted in games. It's not what you think and totally worth reading.

http://www.mediumdifficulty.com/2012/03/01/call-of-apathy-violent-young-men-and-our-place-in-war/

ClockHand
03-03-2012, 01:53 PM
War games don't need to be more real or true to what is war. You don't need to make a war game that in the mechanic you incorporate fatigue and burder stats. What you need is to grown up those games.

As Gunz said, video games start by the principle or thesis of "Video games must be fun", the deal is that when you take the subject of War with such a childish thesis, you are obviously going to be insulting to the subject. War games do this, and even worst, they do it through realism, which is a even more sick of way to take this subject.

If you start by the thesis "video games should be fun", then War games should be the last thing you would want to do, because no sane person would consider war as something "fun".

And if you start by "video games should be provocative", like some movies do, then you might take the subject of War properly, but you have to acknowledge that you are again the idea of making the fun.

War games are insulting because are childish, naive and over patriotic, they fail because video games are (now and probably for a long time more), childish and to get fun.

CypressDahlia
03-03-2012, 02:58 PM
So you're saying war games should not be fun. Or fun games should not be about war.

GunZet
03-03-2012, 03:45 PM
I think he meant games about war should not be fun, and games that should be fun, should not be about war.
But man, games about war are the least of our worries, really. Especially when you got games like GTA. Which were fun up to GTA4, mind you.

Sylux
03-03-2012, 04:15 PM
You wouldn't watch Full Metal Jacket or Johnny Got His Gun because they're fun, but because they're good.

CypressDahlia
03-03-2012, 08:12 PM
The whole idea of designing games that are not to be enjoyed in some way kind of eludes me. I mean it is an entertainment industry. The one thing I found offensive about Black Ops is that they used actual footage of JFK's assassination in the end credit roll. Using actual footage of death for entertainment purposes, especially in the context of a super fabricated story about Russian sleeper agents = not respectful at all. It's practically snuff entertainment.

I mean I understand being desensitized to simulated death because of the countless numbers of 3d models you kill throughout the campaign. But when it comes to real footage of real people, I feel like a visceral line has been crossed. People should have been disgusted by that. If it was historically accurate, even, it would have been more respectful. but the fact that they used it as a tie-in for the sleeper agent thing is just ugghhh~