When Does It Become OK To Make Games About a War? 295
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 always okay (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Who cares? (Score:1, Interesting)
I didn't read the article, but I will assume it's some bleeding-heart bullshit about how insensitive it is to make games about current military endeavors where people are losing their lives and whatever else. I say, as long as the game is well-produced, politically unbiased (it's hard to be 100% this case because there has to be a winner), and, above all else, fun, I couldn't care less which war the game was about. Frankly, I wish there were MORE games about the Iraq war. It gives me something that I can play that relates to current events. It shows that the devs that made it have some balls and aren't afraid of hurting the feelings of a very small select group of people. It also gives me an alternative to the ten WWII games that come out every year which are becoming extremely stale.
I have an idea (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Who cares? (Score:2, Interesting)
I would have guessed it was some right-wingnut complaining about how disrespectful it is to turn such a thing into a game.
Perhaps the problem is the extremists on both sides. What we need more than anything are some real freedom loving elected officials with a backbone. Except for one or two outliers, the notion that anyone in DC, right or left, is there for the good of America is fat ass pipe dream. It's all about what they can steal.
I wish there FPSs called "Rampage Through Congress", "Lobotomize the Lobbyist", "Make the President Eat His Words" etc. etc.
More stupid contraversy? (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Fun and entertainment? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
This is the politically correct version (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:It wasn't that simple (Score:2, Interesting)
The issues about the sinking of that submarine are actually rather interesting, and more info is available here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laconia_incident [wikipedia.org]
In short, here's the message transcript:
From Laconia, a British ocean liner, indicating a submarine attack:
1942-09-12, 2222h: SSS SSS 0434 South / 1125 West Laconia torpedoed
U-156, German submarine under command of KaLeu Hartenstein, sent an encrypted message to the German CINC of Submarines, Admiral Dönitz:
1942-09-13, 0142h: Sunk by Hartenstein British "Laconia". Grid FF 7721 310 degrees. Unfortunately with 1500 Italian POWs. So far 90 fished. 157 cubic meters (of oil). 19 eels [torpedoes], trade wind 3, request orders.
Followed by an unencrypted, English message:
1942-09-13, 0600: If any ship will assist the ship-wrecked Laconia crew, I will not attack providing I am not being attacked by ship or air forces. I picked up 193 men. 4, 53 South, 11, 26 West. German submarine.
Quote from Wikipedia:
The next morning, September 16, at 11:25 a.m., the four submarines, with Red Cross flags draped across their gun decks, were spotted by an American B-24 Liberator bomber from Ascension Island. Hartenstein signalled to the pilot requesting assistance. Lieutenant James D. Harden of the U.S. Army Air Force turned away and notified his base of the situation. The senior officer on duty that day, Captain Robert C. Richardson III, replied with the order "Sink sub."
Harden flew back to the scene of the rescue effort and at 12:32 p.m. attacked with bombs and depth charges. One landed among the lifeboats in tow behind U-156 while others straddled the submarine itself. Hartenstein cast adrift those lifeboats still afloat and ordered the survivors on his deck into the water. The submarines dived and escaped. Hundreds of Laconia survivors perished, but French vessels managed to re-rescue about a thousand later that day. In all, some 1,500 passengers survived.
Under the Hague Conventions, hospital ships are protected from attack, but their identity must be communicated to belligerents (III, 1-3), they must be painted white with a Red Cross emblem (III, 5), and must not be used for other purposes (III, 4). Since a submarine remained a military vessel even if hors de combat, the Red Cross emblem did not confer automatic protection, although in many cases it would have been allowed as a practical matter. The order given by Richardson has been called a possible war crime, but the use of a Red Cross flag by an armed military vessel would also be a violation. There is no provision in either convention for temporary designation of a hospital or rescue ship. Under the informal rules of war at sea, however, ships engaged in rescue operations are held immune from attack.
My 0.02$: Whoever opens fire at anything marked with a Red Cross emblem is a fucking bastard.
Re:It wasn't that simple (Score:4, Interesting)
> The rounding up Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, etc, was done by volunteer groups [...] _not_ from the army.
> So, yes, most German soldiers didn't know jack squat about the extermination, and never rounded up anybody.
It is in a way simpler and more complicated as you put it. The guilt is not easily divided by branches.
The Wehrmacht actively participated [wikipedia.org] in the genocide and committed other atrocities and war-crimes.
While parts of the Wehrmacht displayed various degrees of opposition against the orders of the regime and sometimes even some humanity, it doesn't negate the war crimes executed, tolerated and even ordered by the Wehrmacht, such as rounding up and summary execution of civilians as retaliation for guerilla acts. Torture and rape was also common.
And that was on the western front, were the Nazis due to their racial ideology wanted to show some restrain. I leave it up to either your curiosity or imagination, what happened on the eastern front, where the people were deemed as being lesser, and the Nazis wanted Lebensraum.
> So the "final solution" was actually kept somewhat secret, because, you know, the less people know about it, [...]
A common excuse of the German people in the '45-'68: We didn't know about it. There is only as much truth about it, that next to no one wanted to know about it.
There were some KZs near major German cities (the ones in remember: Buchenwald near Munich, Sachsenhausen near Berlin), and people were complaining about the stink the crematoria were producing.
People killing Jews in the Progrom were not prosecuted. People resisting deportation were shot. Under these circumstances, the children of the war-generation in Germany didn't wanted to believe the lie, that the general populace did not knew about the genocide.
> 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.
And you have to understand, that in the face of an armed squad, where resistance means certain death of you and your family, people will not only be easily rounded up, but even bury their own grave, as they clasp for the little bit of hope, that every second they live, they still have chance to survive, regardless how irrational this hope is. The Nazis certainly did their minimal part to support that vain hope.
All the people knew, they would be killed. They just didn't want to realise it.
Re:Vote up. First poster should have read his hist (Score:1, Interesting)
Realist thinking leads to very uncomfortable questions indeed. It promotes the danger of seeing that the nazis did not start out exterminating people, but started with the idea of equalizing german society. It makes people dangerously prone of seeing the connections that are evident, connections that we are deeply uncomfortable with, like socialism + darwinism -> healthcare cost mounting + "the weak will perish anyway" -> socialist "eugenics" -> isolating "the weak that will perish in camps" -> "the weak" not perishing nearly fast enough -> costs mounting -> extermination. (please note that this train of thought took somewhere between 40-50 years to complete)
E.g. were the "national socialists" the only ones who came to the idea of an "endlosung" ? (no, the soviet socialists did the same thing, many arab "states" like Iraq and Syria did similar things, many so helped by either hitler or the Soviets)
E.g. the volunteer groups : uncomfortable question : "Were some of these groups Jewish ?". Ridiculous thing to ask, right ? Unfortunately the answer will illustrate the blatant ugliness of human nature.
"They didn't know" - perhaps not about the extermination itself, but the rounding up most have been a dead giveaway, right ? So what happened (mostly the removal of these people initially resulted in much less trouble for the rest of the inhabitants. Rouding up cripples/sick/... resulted in less cost for hitler's "national healthcare")
The above post makes it seem as if the decision for rounding up Jews (and gypsies, and cripples, and ...) and exterminating them was one single decision. It wasn't. They were in fact nearly 3 years separated. So what triggered the first (the "eugenics" component of the socialist ideology, which came out of darwinism) and what triggered the second (darwinism's predictions not matching reality : when isolated the "weak" (ie. the Jews) did not perish ... this resulted both in costs which the government could not support and in the uncomfortable question "what if the Jews aren't 'the weak' ?")
Given that hitler "hated Jews", how come so many sick and cripple native germans were rounded up ?
What were the "innovations" that hitler courted the German vote with ? (he had a majority before he became dictator by falsifying attacks) You really don't want to know the answer to this one.
Re:Call of Duty 4, anyone? (Score:3, Interesting)
Heh, little-known fact: C&C:G originally had a mission for the Terrorist faction that involved the player killing 200 civilians.
Using anthrax (or whatever the Toxin Tractors spewed).
It was cut at the last minute after EA Germany pointed out that it would give the game an "M" rating. But you can still see a snippet from it in the final end-of-game movie if you look closely (look for the tractor spraying green goo over a hapless peasant).
You'd think the producers would have had a bit more sense, but, you'd be wrong.
(Not that I'm innocent -- I worked on the game, which is how I know this, but somehow didn't allow myself to realize just how the overall tone of the game turned out till I saw the ad campaign.)
Re:It wasn't that simple (Score:3, Interesting)
I once heard a talk from an ex-Nazi in Germany, and - even though he admitted his and the german's guilt without restraint - tried to at least explain what was going on in the following way:
He said that, yes, when someone asks him why basically nobody did anything to stop the holocaust, the best way to describe it was to say "we didn't really know about it!". But it's a different form of 'not knowing'. Sure, one could see the train-transports going to the concentration camps. Or the rounding up of jews in cities. But it's a natural psychological (irrational) defense mechanism to SOMEHOW try to think that maybe they wont be killed or tortured. So he asked the audience what they would answer when, 50 years from now, our grandkids ask us why we didn't save the africans that get slaughtered every couple of years in some uprising or genocide. Sure - we certainly do 'know' about it. But it's a different kind of 'knowing', since we try to distanciate ourselves from this reality, because it's just to harsh once you really grok how screwed up this whole situation is. Better to tuck it a away in some dark corner of your mind, and try to ignore it. It's a bit like HHGTTG's 'Somebody elses problem field'.