To the Front Lines

"If we as gamers want our hobby to garner positive attention from the mainstream media and public, we need to present valid arguments as to why our favorite pastime (or job, in some cases) is more than just a game. Before we can do this, however, developers need to untie the knot between games and senseless violence that has existed since the medium's infancy. With the oversaturated 'war game' market spread over a breadth of genres, from real-time strategy to first- and third-person shooters, it's a natural place to start."

Read Full Article

I think this article should come with a spoiler alert. Some players have not picked up CoD4 yet and this article gives away a plot point that should first be experienced by the player in the game.

Also, the writer should be aware that more death on the game battlefield is not more realistic or more educational. Games are far more bloody (often ten or more times bloodier) than any real battle that they portray, and when the author cites 'Saving Private Ryan' as an example of what to aim for, he's citing a war movie that also overstates the deadliness of war by an enormous factor. Saving Private Ryan may look realistic, but appearances can be deceptive. I'm all for realism in games - in my view realism can be achieved in an exciting way if a game is well made, but we have to understand that most authors, filmmakers and game developers exaggerate the exciting bits because it's a lot easier to do that than it is to engage the reader/viewer/player in a more meaningful way.

I'm not asking for more death on the battlefield. I'm asking for a more serious representation of it. On the contrary, the things I mentioned about Guerilla's Shellshock game are all specific to single characters -- getting throats slit, being impaled, etc.

". I'm all for realism in games - in my view realism can be achieved in an exciting way if a game is well made, but we have to understand that most authors, filmmakers and game developers exaggerate the exciting bits because it's a lot easier to do that than it is to engage the reader/viewer/player in a more meaningful way."

I believe it can as well -- and believe we're starting to see games that approach it better as well. But you still need to actually have a game, or what's the point?

Thanks,

Mitch Dyer

Gamers have to step back far enough to question why we feel the need to spend our time, money, energy and thought processes on video games that glorify violence. The slogans of my parent's generation was "make love not war" and "give peace a chance" which is a far cry from today's generation of gamers "OMG LOLZ, I just p0wned you n00b!" The conspiracy theorist in me would suggest that we are being programed to think upon war, violence, peace through superior firepower, U.S. foreign policy, post-apocalypse survival of the fittest, as positive and necessary factors of overall human existence.

It wasn't that long ago we were all happy playing an Italian plumber jumping across platforms collecting coins, nowadays gamers scream bloody murder on forums if they hear of a game's violence being toned down for any reason.

Daniel Remar's indie title 'Iji' handles this concept, although in a Sci-Fi setting. If you kill soldiers and pilfer ammo, then the narrative adapts to you. People refuse to listen to you and your character becomes more openly hostile. Eventually, she starts to have a mental breakdown and go into denial about all the death and chaos you're causing.

If you take the pacifist route, soldiers will propose truces and the protagonist is able to maintain her character as an empathetic victim of circumstances. You also get shot at a lot because not everyone in the conflict agrees with the pacifists, etc.

It's not a World War 2 game...but it shouldn't be a shock that games doing this are exploring it in a fantasy setting first. It's free and is quite a bit of fun however you play it. Sorta like if Metroid and System Shock 2 had a baby.

http://www.remar.se/daniel/iji.php

MorkFromOrk:
Gamers have to step back far enough to question why we feel the need to spend our time, money, energy and thought processes on video games that glorify violence...It wasn't that long ago we were all happy playing an Italian plumber jumping across platforms collecting coins, nowadays gamers scream bloody murder on forums if they hear of a game's violence being toned down for any reason.

I totally agree. But I would say that we need to separate violence and gore conceptually. IE the games of tag and chess involve violence or symbols of violence, but are not gory. People have problems with death and gore itself in videogames, not "how useful or meaningful" the death/gore is.

Why do video games need to portray death at all? Why does death need to be the mechanism of choice for removing avatars from game play? Why not "teleporting" like the main character did in Chex Quest, or the tags used by the Son'a against the Ba'ku in the movie ST: Insurrection?

You have a more complicated synthesis of "tag" and "capture the flag" that could still be complex and involved enough to entertain adults but something you wouldn't be ashamed to show your kids or your grandparents, or uncles who actually served in Vietnam (whom I don't tell or show any of my FPS games).

I would gladly buy copies to share with people of a game that put emphasis on teamwork and achieving goals rather than just "killing" the other team. Much like how you don't "kill" each other in real life capture teh flag or tag or chess, the premise becomes acceptable. And when people can accept your premise, then you open the door for them to be able to respect it.

EDIT: Grammars and spelling.

Mind you I am not against violence in video games no more than I am in any other entertainment medium. But because game publishers know the fastest, cheapest, most assured buck that can be made via a video game will cater to your average male's most primal and unevolved nature they pump out one bloody FPS after another without the slightest consideration to social responsibility. Guns 'n ammo, tits 'n ass, it's cheap and the kids can't get enough of it. If anyone complains then "Hey, it's just a game." By that logic we should be able to play video games where the lead character is a rapist. I mean, how is getting serviced by a hooker and then shooting her in the face with a shotgun in GTA IV more acceptable in society than raping her and allow her to live?

I think many of you are somewhat missing the point of the Article. He isn't asking for more death, blood or gore, he's asking for a more serious representation of War. If you've played Brother's in Arms', you know what he's asking for. That game had to have been one of the most emotionally charged games I've ever played.

A think a decent example, although somewhat Sci-Fi, is Metal Gear Solid 4. From the very beginning, you see a barrage of militia soldiers cut down like butter. In the event you kill a lot of people, a familiar voice resounds in Snake's head. "You enjoy all the killing, don't you?". Snake throws up, and you take a large hit on your Psyche meter. I think games are coming closer and closer to being able to accurately represent what it feels like to be in a war zone.

Strangely I've recently started to feel more sensitive to violence and death in films - I think after Rambo 4, featuring what felt like a 15 minute sequence where Rambo mowed down a battalion with an hmg, blowing limbs off and punching 8inch holes through people, as well as a couple of gory mortar strikes against peasant villages. I thought years of gaming and war films would have desensitised me to things like that, but Rambo was just completely over the top. Films and series like Band of Brothers and, to a lesser extent, Saving Private Ryan and Black Hawk Down for me get across a strong anti-war message; little gained, senseless death, retarded leaders, needless cruelty.

Thing is, I don't get the same sense when I play a game. Perhaps its because no matter how shiny it looks, it's never truly realistic - AI behaviours, map design, scripted sequences etc. I just see games as a sequence of challenges and I don't find myself getting caught up in the story or characters like I can in a film. Perhaps that's why I don't enjoy RPGs so much. TBH, when I think about it all the gore and such is just eye candy.

If games became accurate simulators for warfare, I think sales would plummet. They are great in fantasy, with you as some badass hero saving the world, but if there was a realistic simulation of what I can only imagine war to be like the game would be boring, exciting and sickening in equal measures. And not that much fun to play.

Wicky_42:
to a lesser extent, Saving Private Ryan

God dammit, I'd loved you up to that point. :(

Saving Private Ryan as the go-to reference point for all things World War II

Yep! And creationism for all things evolution. And pre-emptive strikes for all things Blitzkrieg. And American patriotic propaganda for actual historic facts. And a bullshit premise to start with (lose 9 people for saving 1) for all things realism.

Well done, Sir!
The bullshit bell is ringing in a loud, shrill voice and won't stop any time soon.

COD4 was mentioned.

I played it as well, but I didn't like it. I will explain why:

A long time ago I played Halo 1 for the PC. My PC was good enough to run Half-Life (which I liked), but the conversion was so bad, it actually lagged with Halo. Technical things aside, I didn't like the game, because at one point, I encountered those big, clumsy aliens. I felt sorry for them, so I couldn't shoot them. I kid you not. Yes, they were shooting at me, but I didn't care. It was no fun. It felt like emptying a clip of an assault rifle into a crowd of unarmed tourists. I couldn't find that attractive. So I stopped.

The same occurred with COD4. It all started in the very first level on the ship. I never understood why I was sent there. They are Russians, so it's OK to kill them? I just followed my computer mates... I played on normal and didn't really have to do much fighting myselves, they did it all for me. Especially shooting the drunk and sleeping sailors... wow, how heroic. Now we shoot drunk and sleeping people? What's next? Mass executions for fun?
So I dragged on.

When this flying doom airplane was presented to me, I felt like in an advertisement for war™ (now with improved formula for more fun!). I mean... it was more frightening to see how people can be killed from a distance like in a computer game. Once again, the Halo effect kicked in. I didn't like it.

When you change into the perspective of the president (who will be shot), I first thought: Interesting! Now we change sides and play as an insurgent... but during that ridiculous driving thru the streets with all those see-we-are-evil-because-we-have-executions-at-every-busstop-propaganda set up by the game developers I realized that this would be once again a single-minded trip into the Patriotic Idiot's Paradise and I was in for another big spoon of:
If Americans kill 10,000 people/invade countries = good deed
If other countries do the same (like in Ossetia) = TERRORISM! Start the 3rd World War, we don't care!!

Wicky_42:

Thing is, I don't get the same sense when I play a game. Perhaps its because no matter how shiny it looks, it's never truly realistic - AI behaviours, map design, scripted sequences etc. I just see games as a sequence of challenges and I don't find myself getting caught up in the story or characters like I can in a film.

I understand what you mean and totally agree with you there. Take 'friendly fire' for example. It's hard to feel bad when you accidentaly shoot your best squad mates (something that would realistically induce suicide) when they're running around into walls and getting stuck on ramps like retarded-headless-gimp-chickens.

It took me a while to appreciate the Brothers in Arms games, but now that I notice the nuances, I love them even more. The first one took place over eight days (Yet still contained around 20 missions. Those two numbers added up to see how after losing friends and being forced to go on constant missions with little rest, that each soldier started to get more angry and tired over time, to the point where they alienated one soldier into going semi-suicidal.

The gameplay also helped to enhance the mood of war. Instead of being a super-soldier mowing down fifty enemies per block, you were an average guy who was screwed without his allies. Each mission forced you to hunker down and find and exploit weak spots of enemies while still being fast-paced and frenetic. And when you finally took down that three man fire team, you realized that that was just the first few minutes of the mission, and you had much more to go in that level. You also take into account how little you feel in the war by noticing that each mission is just to do something like secure about 50 meters of road, or two or three city blocks in order to aid something bigger than you. It's a cool opposition to many war games that make you feel like you just captured an entire city by yourself, which kind of belittles the trials of people who endure the real thing.

God, I can't wait for Hell's Highway this week.

I got hands on with Hell's Highway recently, and holy hot damn is it vicious. Lining up a headshot and cracking a dudes melon to reveal portions of his brain is absolutely disgusting. I was actually shocked the first time I blew a guy's helmet off, and below it was his brain-case, sans case. The appropriate amount of blood coupled with the slow zoom and moan was absolutely visceral. THIS is what I'm asking for -- not buckets of the stuff. Just proper, horrifying representations of it that make you think about what you're doin'.

Didn't mention Operation Flashpoint, Teh best war game evar.

A game that relied on the players to create tension for each other.