That is hardly the minority
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'.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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-
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
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.
I mean cmon, like the most realistic life sim I've ever played is Osmos.
o_o *totally lost*
For every two minutes of glamour, there are eight hours of hard work."