Limits of Gaming

[RobertMc123]

I'm 30, I mean the older generation who appear on Fox News calling Mass Effect "Star Wars meets Debbie Does Dallas", once they are gone the rest of us can actually enjoy games as an experience just like movies, music and TV and not think "the news is going to have a field day with this."

And yes, what you said above.

[AmzRigh]

I agree with Matt -- a game that promotes, glorifies and makes money for an organization like Blackwater is no good.

As for the Nazis, as several of you have pointed out, a "protagonist" story is not hard to write for them. But that's because people understand the factors that led to their rise to power, and the distance between what the German people wanted and what the Nazis did.

How about something more difficult? Viet Cong? Khmer Rouge?

This may be a huge tangent, but I'd love to see a WWI game. That war was so many shades of gray, you could almost play as anybody and be a "good guy" or "bad guy." Plus, what other setting would let you employ war zeppelins? (Fantasy notwithstanding, of course.)

[Metcarfre]

How is Viet Cong any more difficult?

A WWI game, of course, would likely be very, very boring.

[AmzRigh]

It's a very different situation that's relatively unexplored in western history education -- it'd be "new material" to a lot of people.

And I strongly disagree with your assessment of a WWI game. Any game is going to focus on the "exciting" points of its subject matter; it's why you see Normandy in every WWII game and Hoth in every Star Wars game.

[Dutch guy]

Also, WW1 for the average soldier (Or the average commander for that mater) was "dull". It was either freezing your balls off in a trench, or getting ordered over the top for an attack, move 100 yards through no-mans land and get mowed down by enemy machine gun fire. Not much more happened for the entire war. It would make for a shitty game in terms of "entertainment and diversity"

[Master Gunner]

High points (gameplay-wise) may have being few and far between, but I still think operations like Vimy Ridge would make good levels.

[AmzRigh]

Thanks, Master Gunner, you get what I'm saying!

Also, terribly amused by the juxtaposition of the last two posters -- MG defending [my point] from The Dutch. XD

[Gap Filler]

Until and unless there's a game in which I play a member of Unit 731 from a sympathetic POV, I can't say my limits on gaming have really been tested.

[theDreamer]

This may be a huge tangent, but I'd love to see a WWI game. That war was so many shades of gray, you could almost play as anybody and be a "good guy" or "bad guy." Plus, what other setting would let you employ war zeppelins? (Fantasy notwithstanding, of course.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:World_War_I_video_games

[AmzRigh]

While a handful of those sound interesting, only one comes remotely close to what I meant (The Entente: Battlefields World War I), and even it's an RTS; the majority of those games are combat flight sims (and a couple are just way outta left field).

Weigh those against the countless WWII games that exist, and against the quality of narrative that games are capable of; the setting still has immense untapped potential.

To move back to the actual stated topic of the thread and expand upon my earlier post, I have kind of a weak stomach for "evil" content in games -- I always play the good guy when given a choice, because I feel very uneasy playing the bad guy. I mean, even for as lighthearted as the game was, and as much fun as I had with the gameplay, I couldn't continue playing Overlord. I think it's a perfectly good game, and would recommend other people try it; it's just the uneasiness outweighed the fun for me.

Games that let you be the bad guy, or make you do bad things for the sake of the narrative, I have no real problems with; they're not for me, but they're not pretending to be something they aren't. But making the objective bad guy the subjective good guy? That steps outside the boundaries of good taste — and, in this case, even further, since the party in question benefits directly and indirectly from it; I mean, nobody's really got anything to gain from a game like Glorious Hero Pol Pot.

[theDreamer]

The honest reason WWII gets more games?

1) Nazis are a clear enemy. People want to shoot them in the face.
2) The war was more interesting. Trench Warfare is dull as hell.
3) The was is more recent and thus fresh in memory. We spent much more time on it in history class than WWI.
4) There are just fucktons of sequels.

...Also Overlord was so bad for "evil."

[Metcarfre]

Have you... have you never read anything about WWI?

There's no way you can be a protagonist in such a game. There's no rapid assaults, no daring raids or stoic defenses. Just dull, plodding work. The vast majority killed in WWI were killed by artillery. The infantry experience was nothing like what would be fodder for a typical FPS.

Even an 'exciting' battles like Vimy Ridge (which MG mentioned) was far, far more about the timing between artillery and infantry. Are you going to make a game where every level design is flat, brown and gray, with no features whatsoever? Where the most exciting activity would be 'walk forward 100 yards in ten minutes, stop for five, repeat'?

[AmzRigh]

theDreamer: I understand full well why WWII gets so many games; I just think WWI has a lot of unused potential. Also, I at least partially disagree with point #2: WWI was the first of a "new" kind of war, the first since the advent of numerous technologies, both strictly-military and with-military-applications. Nobody knew what to do, so there was experimentation. WWII was the well-oiled machine resulting from the numerous prototypes that were WWI. And, as in any story, the journey is, in some ways, more interesting than the destination.

Not to deny any interesting occurrences in WWII, or any lack of experimenting -- heck, I thoroughly enjoyed My Tank Is Fight!, by Zack Parsons. But "Oh no, the big bad Nazis" just...it's overdone. Needs new material.

metcarfre: Are you saying timing can't make for a good game mechanic? Or that only fast-paced combat can be engaging gameplay? You accuse me of not knowing anything about WWI; I counter that by noting you display little creativity, at least in terms of game design.

Seriously, though, you're always so confrontational; chill out.

[EikoandMog]

Honestly, I'd love to see games play from the other perspective a bit more often, even if it's someone doing the 'right' thing from the other side of the enemy line.

[Drinnik]

Have you... have you never read anything about WWI?

There's no way you can be a protagonist in such a game. There's no rapid assaults, no daring raids or stoic defenses. Just dull, plodding work. The vast majority killed in WWI were killed by artillery. The infantry experience was nothing like what would be fodder for a typical FPS.

Even an 'exciting' battles like Vimy Ridge (which MG mentioned) was far, far more about the timing between artillery and infantry. Are you going to make a game where every level design is flat, brown and gray, with no features whatsoever? Where the most exciting activity would be 'walk forward 100 yards in ten minutes, stop for five, repeat'?

You could have a game based on the Somme. It'd be like Lemmings, how many can you get from the trenches across No Man's Land before they die horribly under German fire.

[theDreamer]

The issue is you couldn't have a FPS, which is possibly the most popular genre (after sports[?]) about WWI.

There is nothing to do.

People don't want to wait around for hours.

People don't want to charge and then die without ever having seen an enemy.

The war is seriously dull from a first person perspective. That's why the games for WWI are either RTSs, which lack all forms of emotional investment, and flight sims.

Trust me on this. I've spent days thinking about game design. Not educated formerly, but I play plenty of games, and listen to plenty of gamers, and thought both about what's doable and wanted, and any FPS set in WWI for any length of time would be incredibly dull.

And I concur "oh no nazis" is overdone, but the only way to change that is to use a more recent war, a fake future war, or play the game from the nazi perspective.

And of that, only the last one hasn't been done, and I do think would be very interesting,

[RobertMc123]

The honest reason WWII gets more games?

Because it was the last war with clearly defined bad guys and good guys, every war since then has been shades of grey. There are more dubious reasons for countries going to war, whereas in WW2, Germany invaded Poland and the UK said "shit's on bro!" and then they went to war. I know there were other factors but it was basically stopping an invading force led by a mad man.

[xdeathknightx]

I really think a Brothers in Arms style game about a soldier of the Third Reich, telling a full story and a lot of background would be a really good tool to put the whole world war into perspective.
(Warning controversial opinion ahead)
I really think people are too easily condemning the german soldier of the era for believing their Fuhrer and going to war for germany. Due to the whole political climate at the time, it was easy for Hitler to stoke the citizens into the feeling of superiority that led to many of the gruesome things done in the war. Don't get me wrong, I agree that the Nazi's did many many gruesome things that are indefensible, but I feel the discussion is often highly polarized and one-sided.

But just because of that I feel a game, showing the entire story line, would be a good thing. Not just a Nazi soldier killing allies, but a Nazi soldier being drafted, fighting his first battle (Winning ofcourse), the initial wins at the eastern front, etc. Then later the defeats, the hopeless battles and the retreating.

I agree, usually they show the deranged brainwashed SS soldier. While I totally disagree with the Nazis I think it would be good to show that a lot of them were just average joes and a lot of them just wanted to go home, especially near the end of the war. And that very few of them were actual members of the Nazi party.
Believe it was in the Band of Brothers tv show, where the actual people featured in the series talk, that someone said that he believed that he could have been friends with some of the German soldiers if there hadn't been a war. That they probably shared a lot of interests but that due to this they were shooting at eachother.

[PenninInk]

I really don't think there should be a limit to the subject matter video games can tackle, provided they tackle it with dignity. Books, film, TV, comic books and music all utilise INCREDBILY controversial subject matter all the time, and even get awards for it.

I think video games should have that same experience. Whether or not the medium is ready to take that step is another matter. And this may just be all the Extra Credits vids I've been watching, but I really think video games are capable of an incredible amount of empathetic story telling. They're far more immersive than a non-interactive medium, and if they can tell a painful, distressing and controversial story without turning it into some blood-and-semen-soaked wank fest, treating it with the respect and intensity it demands, then they'll have proved themselves a much more formidible artistic form than the world currently believes them to be.

[Duckay]

I see your point and almost completely agree, PenninInk, but I think there is a flip side to that, too: I would love to see a video game handle some of these controversial subjects with respect. I really would.

I also think, though, that if a game handles the subject poorly, in a disrespectful way, or as you put it, a blood-and-semen-soaked wank fest, that they should be called out for that. I also tend to think that most games in that genre are likely to fall somewhere between the two, rather than being great or terrible.

[PenninInk]

I see your point and almost completely agree, PenninInk, but I think there is a flip side to that, too: I would love to see a video game handle some of these controversial subjects with respect. I really would.

I also think, though, that if a game handles the subject poorly, in a disrespectful way, or as you put it, a blood-and-semen-soaked wank fest, that they should be called out for that. I also tend to think that most games in that genre are likely to fall somewhere between the two, rather than being great or terrible.

Absolutely, but I really think the first foray should at least attempt that level of dignity, or else gaining the respect the medium deserves will be that much harder.

I think it's possible that releasing a mediocre or even okay game with that kind of subject matter could be just as detrimental as releasing a horrible one. Kind of like "Oh, look, they're trying to be all grown up, isn't that precious?"

Once you've got the kind of game-changing example I was talking about, though, I think it'd be easier for the public to accept mid-range attempts and forgive bad ones.

[Vigafre]

Late to the party opinion (also I kinda forgot what's already been said):

Video games are an interactive medium. Everyone knows that. Interactivity creates immersion. Immersion creates connections. Connections trigger emotions. An example of this is at the end of Splinter Cell Convition (spoiler forthcoming; hidden for the innocent). While you're in the Oval Office with the main bad guy after saving the prezzie and what not, you question said baddie on his motives, you're are given the choice of bashing him or shooting him (well, his arm). This happens twice. The third time it comes up, you can walk away or shoot him (in the head). Because of the Hell he put Fisher through, I shot him, because that's what I would have done in real life (if you walk away, your partner shoots him, but whatever). I feel connected with these characters for the most part, and when given choices, I don't act on how the character should act, I act on how I would act.

Thusly, I fell that creating a game where you must do terrible things because that's what you're guy does just seems...too far. As I've stated elsewhere, I didn't shoot anybody in that airport in MW2. They were all innocent to me; I had no reason to shoot them. My character had a reason to shoot them. He needed to blend in. However, should I be forced to shoot them? No, absolutely not. Granted, if I bought a game that forced me to do that "bad" things, I should expect those kind of instances to come up, but just by doing these actions makes you okay with them. I don't care if that's part of the story or it's what the character would do, you're okay with performing these actions by doing them. Going with the Nazi example here, yeah, it would be kind of interesting to see how a Nazi soldier felt if he didn't totally agree with his teammates motives. I'm pretty sure that's what the movie "Valkyrie" did. However, if I have to play as the other side with a character who's completely okay with mass murdering Jews, that's too much. It's one thing to work with conflict of interests as a story incentive, but just being "the other side" isn't good enough. Playing the other side isn't interesting in and of itself; there isn't enough depth. I'm sure there are a lot of people who can't form a complete disconnect with characters in a game to go through terrible acts, which is sure why there aren't many of games like that that actually work.

Wow, I'm tired, what the hell did I just say?

Edit: Ah shi-, missed a whole page. Whoops.

[Duckay]

That's pretty likely, PenninInk - I guess it's just a matter of someone making that brilliant, game-changing one. Which, well, may well not happen.

[PenninInk]

That's pretty likely, PenninInk - I guess it's just a matter of someone making that brilliant, game-changing one. Which, well, may well not happen.

I live in hope.