Men Of Valor Takes On Vietnam Gaming Experience 17
Thanks to Eurogamer for its two-part interview with the creators of Xbox/PC FPS Men Of Valor, another of the raft of current/forthcoming titles based on the Vietnam War. The interviewer pointedly notes: "2015 is determined to try and avoid making a political statement or offending anybody. Yet, at the same time, they've chosen an African-American man for the lead and aim to touch on some of the delicate racial issues that were unfolding at the time... There are certainly some aspects of the equation that don't quite add up." A hands-on Xbox preview from Eurogamer also delves deeper into gameplay for this September-due title, praising what looks like "a solid first-person shooter with some thoughtful ideas behind it", although cautioning: "we'd argue there's certainly some cynicism in the Vietnam game idea."
Re:Africans in Vietnam? (Score:2)
African-American refers to a person of African heritage that lives or grew up in America.
Re:Africans in Vietnam? (Score:2)
Rob
Re:Africans in Vietnam? (Score:2)
Re:When will game companies have original ideas? (Score:2)
Re:When will game companies have original ideas? (Score:2)
Give yourself a break (Score:4, Informative)
"African Americans often did supply a disproportionate number of combat troops, a high percentage of whom had voluntarily enlisted. Although they made up less than 10 percent of American men in arms and about 13 percent of the U.S. population between 1961 and 1966, they accounted for almost 20 percent of all combat-related deaths in Vietnam during that period. In 1965 alone African Americans represented almost one-fourth of the Army's killed in action. In 1968 African Americans, who made up roughly 12 percent of Army and Marine total strengths, frequently contributed half the men in front-line combat units, especially in rifle squads and fire teams. Under heavy criticism, Army and Marine commanders worked to lessen black casualties after 1966, and by the end of the conflict, African American combat deaths amounted to approximately 12 percent--more in line with national population figures."
From: Encyclopedia of the Vietnam War: A Political, Social, and Military History
Of course more blacks aren't going to die than whites in Vietnam, percentage wise that would be very difficult (as whites are far more common). However, they were disproportionately sent over, as this makes clear.
So, I guess I'm saying it's not a MYTH and that you're wrong.
Re:Give yourself a break (Score:1)
All these Vietnam games and still... (Score:2)
From Dead Milkmen song:
Annette: Hey Frankie.
Frankie: Yeah Annette?
Annette: Aren't you going to give me your class ring?
Frankie: I'm afraid I can't do that Annette.
Annette: Why not?
Frankie: Because I don't have any arms!
They could even have a level where you go surfing with Robert Duvall.
Say something. Say anything. (Score:3, Interesting)
The game industry is an infant still, and it's this kind of false political sanitization that reflects its immaturity. In the Eurogamer article, the author, Tom Bramwell, writes, "Men of Valor is pointless . . . It has no point to make." No surprise there. "According to developer 2015," Bramwell adds, "Men of Valor is largely narrative and action, and wrapped up in historical research and observation, not politics." Well, as a historian, I object to the belief that anything can be based on "historical research and observation" and not be political. All history, and therefore historical research, is political. It's all biased. It all leans in one direction or the other. Team 2015 is merely fooling itself with this silly psuedo-nihilism. Historians left behind the ill founded belief that there is one "true" or "accurate" version of history a long time ago. Besides, what does historically accurate mean anyway? That the hills and shacks and trees are in the right place? That the guns look real? All these things meant something so much more to the soldiers there than hills, and shacks, trees, and guns. They symbolized something to them, they meant something. Team 2015 isn't performing some circus act historical accuracy, it's ignoring what these things really mean, they're ignoring the entire point of, well, everything.
Besides, even in saying "nothing" Team 2015 is saying "something." Within the construct of the game, it is advantageous, and therefore "good" and "right", to kill the Vietnamese, because the player won't progress through the game without killing them. The construct of the game will reward the killing of the Vietnamese by advancing the player to the next level. So they are saying something. Very basically, they're communicating to the player "If you kill these digital representations, these symbols of the VC, we will let you play the game longer."
Someone should, intentionally, try to make a statement using a video game. If Michael Moore's film, and the recent barrage of documentaries, proves anything it's that you can be profitable while making entertainment that is very political in nature. You can get away with saying something and making money while doing it. I'm not against fun games, nor am I going to go off and say that Warioware and Tetris shouldn't exist. But, Team 2015 and the other wargame developers should never claim this mythical historical accuracy, and they should stop trying to say nothing because they're saying something anyways. Maturity in games comes not with sterilization, but the ability to use video games as a mean of expression and communication as well as entertainment.
It's time for the video game industry to mature, and that inevitably means growing some balls. Team 2015 could be the first, if they're up for it.
Re:Say something. Say anything. (Score:1)
'historical' games (Score:2)
Re:'historical' games (Score:2)
They make movies about wars that actually happened...so why not games?
When they make movies/books/plays/games about wars that didn't happen, it is usually 'science fiction', which a large part of the population is not interested in. Personally, I'd rather watch 'Starship Troopers' than 'Glory' [imdb.com] but that's me.
How far back into history would it be okay (ie: not to disturb our 'sensitivities') to portray a war in a video game?
Is WWII