This War of Mine is the War Game I've Been Waiting For

I wouldn't say Gordon Freeman is an average person.

OT: Nice concept. Good to see a little bit change in perspective once in a while.

Oh, that looks very interesting. They also get bonus points for using Gyöngyhajú lány in the trailer.

I'd rather be the soldier than the pedestrian in a video game, but it's always good to see developers try new ideas. Not every game is for me (very few are, it seems) but I appreciate that. Sounds interesting at the very least. Hopefully it comes out to be good.

Heck, Papers, Please sounds boring to me on all accounts, and that game is beloved. And it's all because one guy wanted to do something different. More variety for the win!

It sounds like an interesting entry in to the survival genre of video games, but not the war game. So I'd say it's not the war game that you've been waiting for, but the non-zombie survival game you've been waiting for.

Gonna have to keep an eye out for this one. Until then...

please don't suck, please don't suck, please don't suck, please don't suck. It'd be extremely easy to screw up simply by adding too much combat, and focusing on it too much.

I dont really think even Infinity Ward Call of Duty games take themselves seriously anymore. I really think they are turning into a satire of themselves...
And if they are not... well :(

VoidOfOne:
I'd rather be the soldier than the pedestrian in a video game, but it's always good to see developers try new ideas. Not every game is for me (very few are, it seems) but I appreciate that. Sounds interesting at the very least. Hopefully it comes out to be good.

Heck, Papers, Please sounds boring to me on all accounts, and that game is beloved. And it's all because one guy wanted to do something different. More variety for the win!

This.

Quite a few nowadays games try too hard to tell a story and often fuck up the gameplay in the process. Of course, there are people who still enjoy these games, so that's good (being genuine here). But yeah, this really doesn't seem like it's for me.

Anybody else instinctively add the phrase "I'm gonna let it shine!" whenever they read the title of this game?

Very interesting concept, yes we'll have to see what the gameplay is like but that can be made interesting as well. I never found shooting hordes of enemies that interesting, going up against overwhelming odds was far more so.

Gonna keep track of this.

I could definitely get behind this. While I'm all for the protagonist of a story actually being important to the goings-on of their setting (for God's sake, Infinity Ward, please pay attention to that basic premise if nothing else, COD Ghosts is genuinely leading me to believe you've forgotten it) I actually like the idea of being just a typical person caught in very atypical circumstances and then having to contrive ways to survive the resultant horrific mess, where the perspective and therefore the story isn't the huge overarching wars but the personal stories that result from the setting.

Knew about this before, actually made a thread about the game before this news article, but it didn't get much attention so I'm glad it has front page status now. :D

Definitely interested in this game. I think that the idea of games engaging in controversial topics and ideas is incredibly important for this medium to grow and mature as an art form, so whether it turns out to be an astounding game or just sucking, I commend 11 Bit Studios for tackling such a topic in the first place!

I dunno, man. I'm still a little combat fatigued from Spec Ops: the Line. I'm not sure how much more grim, unrelentingly realistic depictions of the horrors of war I can take.

COD: 'ey shoot da tings an' dey fall dow bredda

Indie Scene: Let's tackle a subject that's very real, thought provoking, and highly engaging.
This War of Mine: 10/10 Must buy.

If reviews are good, then I myself will buy! And here's hoping it's good, because this seems like a really good concept (That I'm surprised hasn't been used in Video Games yet).

A zombie game, except that there aren't any zombies to hide the real horror: the monster that is us.

It sounds interesting. Not a game I would likely enjoy, but interesting none the less. I am, however, curious as to why they would put an emphasis on finding and using weapons if the game is supposed to be about staying out of the fight. I mean you could have it where you have to defend your group from one, or both, sides but that makes you a combatant. Just a third and vastly smaller faction active in the war.

I probably would not enjoy a game like this, but it looks interesting.

It's nice to see some new ideas pop up from time to time.

I like the concept

but until I see some actual gameplay footage then I won't hold my breath

I am unlikely to buy this game, but its existence fills me with joy.

I am going to keep an eye on this one, I would get it IF it is done right. Random attacks, scares supplies, must make alliances with devils you know and don't know for food and water, my decisions actually affecting my people, non-liner open world ...

On the surface it is a new take on a over done idea but man, so many ways to screw this up. Bad AI, over-simplified missions or you get to a point to wear you are just mowing down waves of ... bad guys to save your good guys.

Yeah, must watch this one.

Wow, this sounds like one of the best survival-horror concepts ever, and so simple. My only worry is that (once again) everything that happens of significance is scripted, removing the player from the equation. If my party members die, I want it to be because I f--ked up, not because "the story demands it". I really, really, really hope that they get this part of it right.

But that aside, this sounds like an awesome concept, and I hope the game is as good as the concept is.

Mik Sunrider:
I am going to keep an eye on this one, I would get it IF it is done right. Random attacks, scares supplies, must make alliances with devils you know and don't know for food and water, my decisions actually affecting my people, non-liner open world ...

On the surface it is a new take on a over done idea but man, so many ways to screw this up. Bad AI, over-simplified missions or you get to a point to wear you are just mowing down waves of ... bad guys to save your good guys.

Yeah, must watch this one.

...I actually didn't see your post before I made mine. But yeah, that is absolutely how I feel about this too. It's such a fantastic idea that I hope they do it justice.

Sounds like a great premise, but it had better not be 20 hours of escort missions. I don't care how confronting and unconventional the game is, I'm not playing any more games where you have to babysit crappy AI.

I like how the slogan goes in contrast of Call of Duty's, machismo calling, "There's a soldier in all of us". No.. There's not. There's a small offer of survival games these days. I'm hoping for a success here. If the developers make a good quality game out of this, I'm hoping that gamers will see that you can't glorify war like the gaming industry did.

Is the concept interesting? Sure. But I'd like to remind everyone of something...

Right now we have no actual idea of what gameplay will be, let alone look or play like. As of now, all we have to go on is an emotional cinematic trailer (not knocking it, as a trailer it does a fine job) that's making us discuss ideas that may or may not be relevant in the final release. There was another game that did a similar thing. Do you remember what it is?

Dead Island

I'll let that sink in for a bit

Eternal_Lament:
Is the concept interesting? Sure. But I'd like to remind everyone of something...

Right now we have no actual idea of what gameplay will be, let alone look or play like. As of now, all we have to go on is an emotional cinematic trailer (not knocking it, as a trailer it does a fine job) that's making us discuss ideas that may or may not be relevant in the final release. There was another game that did a similar thing. Do you remember what it is?

Dead Island

I'll let that sink in for a bit

Dead Fucking Island...

This is why I can't be too excited about This War of Mine. Ambitious projects that try to take an emotional spin on an already tired concept can turn around and explode on themselves if they try to incorporate too much of the genre they're trying to revolutionize, like how Dead Island took too much from the Borderlands, Survival Horror, "beat zombies up with unorthodox weapons like in Dead Rising and Left 4 Dead" sort of thing. ... Not to mention that not many video games have a track record for awesome story.

... On an unrelated tangent, the Dead Island trailer STILL remains one of my favorite trailers of all time. Someone make a damn movie out of that. ... The trailer, not the game.

As someone who still regards Prisoner of War as one of my favourite "war" games of all time, i'm keenly looking forward to this.

Well, the thing is that the first world has largely sanitized the concept of war and our expectations based on our own propaganda and growing morality. Your typical person for example is unaware of say Sir Arthur "Bomber" Harris, who is one of my go-to examples about warfare, because he was one of the most heavily decorated warriors in World War II (by both the UK and US) and instrumental in breaking Germany, yet would be considered a war criminal as opposed to a hero by today's standards. Basically, had he not bombed the crap out of German civilians, factories, farms, and everything and anything he could hit, it wouldn't have broken their spirit. This guy was to the Germans called "The Butcher" and he was infamous and feared. He even killed our own people when the germans decided to put POWs to work in factories and such hoping to use them as human shields. He's just one example among many, but basically if your ever going to truly defeat a people and force long-term change/capitulation if you do not conquer them, you need to break their backbone and the spirit of the common man in that nation, culture, or holding that idealogy. Once they have given up their cause as hopeless and can do little except beg pitifully for mercy, while not being in any position to do real damage that is when you can stop.

War sucks is my message by the way, so don't read more into that statement than intended. I prefer to avoid it, but it does become necessary especially in a divided world, and when conflict has to happen, I prefer to see it done right so you can at least resolve things for the forseeable future.

Video games are generally intended as entertainment products, this is why they focus on the glory of war, as opposed to showing it "how it is" which is something I think most people are aware of more than they realize. You don't see say "Master Chief" throw some 12 year old Alien child who happened to join the opposing youth corps up against the wall with a dozen more like him and cut loose with a mini-gun, or say force a village to dig a trench, line the people up inside of it, and then machine gun all of them and cover it with a bulldozer, because that kind of crap just isn't fun. It's a necessary part of a real war (because it scares the living hell out of people, at first they become angry and line up to face you, but as you do it more and more, and it becomes inevitable, the spirit breaks and people will pretty much be willing to agree to what would otherwise be unthinkable terms to avoid it happening to them). There is no real challenge in doing something like that, no real "game", no particular "adventure", it's just a giant mess that everyone, including the guys performing the massacre, really kind of wish didn't have to be done. Likewise while he did a lot to demoralize Germany, and contributed massively to to the offensive portion of the war, playing a game where your say "Bomber" Harris and his wing, flying over towns and dropping payloads of death, with all of the opposition long since destroyed (no more enemy planes, no more anti-aircraft guns... just relentless slaughter with bombs now that the way is open), just really isn't much of a "Game".

What's more being a video game, there is no real confusing it with reality, as a result the inclusion of civilians and such that your not supposed to shoot as a "foil" or even a background element, tends to become an annoyance more than something that helps you "get into the idea of a war". Sort of like the non-combatant scientists in the old "Crusader" games by origin, most people would kill them because they are simply in the way (and can drop extra credits) there isn't exactly any kind of real effort to make a moral judgement about doing this. Escort missions, or ones with tons of "penalty" targets likewise tend to annoy gamers... and really even going back as far as "Baldur's Gate" they parodied the entire thing by having a peasant (Noober) harass you and awarded exps for NOT killing him, because they made it soooo tempting. IRL you wouldn't put the village idiot to the sword for annoying you, but this isn't RL.

The idea of helping a bunch of civilians escape a war zone is interesting, but honestly it would have to be presented just right, and have you given some sympathetic objective other than "just because they are civilians". For a stealth/hazard avoidance game, it's an interesting way of dressing it up. To be honest though I don't think it will wind up teaching much to many people, and if it does, it will probably be the wrong message about war. To be honest a "peace at any price" message only works when everyone has the same objective, and really aviding the realities of breaking people (psychological warfare) and the like is one of the big reasons in other threats I've spoken strongly in favor of establishing one world government/superculture at any cost, since really at the end of the day the only way to get around the ugliness of war is to ensure there are no separate factions of the sort that can go to war or have misunderstandings. Of course that goes well off topic, and this is long enough so I'm not going to go into it again.

That said, some people will like this game a lot I think. Personally I would have preferred the old "5 days in Fallujah" game they were planning, not so much because of the location, but because they planned to handle "war" like a survival horror game rather than an action game... and that could be interesting. A survival horror style of play and progression would probably fit the whole gueriella or "man trapped behind enemy lines" schtick a lot better than your typical action game where you just run around and kill everyone, while carrying an unlikely number of bullets to fire out of a gun that apparently needs no upkeep no matter how many rounds it cranks out. :)

Games not even out yet, your still waiting for it...
'The war game I'm still waiting for and I know nothing about'* Their I fixed it and no one else will ever hype up a game ever again...

This looks very interesting! Could be good.

Therumancer:
You don't see say "Master Chief" throw some 12 year old Alien child who happened to join the opposing youth corps up against the wall with a dozen more like him and cut loose with a mini-gun, or say force a village to dig a trench, line the people up inside of it, and then machine gun all of them and cover it with a bulldozer, because that kind of crap just isn't fun. It's a necessary part of a real war (because it scares the living hell out of people, at first they become angry and line up to face you, but as you do it more and more, and it becomes inevitable, the spirit breaks and people will pretty much be willing to agree to what would otherwise be unthinkable terms to avoid it happening to them).

Genocid is not a necessary part of a real war! These crimes happen during a war because it is often thought to be the easy way. Maybe sometimes it is, but then you need to be very "rigorous". Otherwise it will come back and violence is going to happen again. The suffering comes with war but it´s not an necessary evil, it´s a direct or indirect consequence.
You named Bomber Harris and I think you allready said his tactic of demoralisation didn´t work. In fact it did´t the oppsite, most people already had given up all hope, but the fought on sometimes purly to get some kind of revenge. The nazi-propaganda was able to use these bombings to strech out the suffering even more. Here in germany even today neo-nazi-groups use these crimes as some sick kind of justification.

Mik Sunrider:
I am going to keep an eye on this one, I would get it IF it is done right. Random attacks, scares supplies, must make alliances with devils you know and don't know for food and water, my decisions actually affecting my people, non-liner open world ...

On the surface it is a new take on a over done idea but man, so many ways to screw this up. Bad AI, over-simplified missions or you get to a point to wear you are just mowing down waves of ... bad guys to save your good guys.

Yeah, must watch this one.

TheMadDoctorsCat:
Wow, this sounds like one of the best survival-horror concepts ever, and so simple. My only worry is that (once again) everything that happens of significance is scripted, removing the player from the equation. If my party members die, I want it to be because I f--ked up, not because "the story demands it". I really, really, really hope that they get this part of it right.

But that aside, this sounds like an awesome concept, and I hope the game is as good as the concept is.

Pretty much this. Yeah it's a great concept and could be brilliant if done right, but there's so many things they'll have to be very careful about when making it. Just one thing from a story point of view, as Doc said having even more than just a few significant scripted events in a game that's supposed to be about your looking after a lasting group of NPC's, especially when it comes to character deaths, would suck greatly, and when it comes to gameplay you and your band of survivors will need to be effective and functional while at the same still coming across as regular people caught in a warzone.

While it's definitely too early to get a real feel for where it's going, I reckon I'm mostly concerned that the game might try too hard to get a 'war is bad' kind of point across by making a narrative that practically exists to be overblown and overly dramatic, shoving various scenes of atrocities into your face every five minutes without any reason for you to care much about what's going on, similar to Homefront and Company of Heroes 2. A game like this could instead, done carefully, really get that point across by nature of it's gameplay, where say, you aren't confronted with the horrors of war through a cutscene showing a mass grave with a shellshocked veteran narrating a piece about how awful everything was, but instead you experience the sheer suckery of the situation through more naturally occurring events happening ingame and your difficult ways of dealing or not dealing with them. Say you're desperately short on water and one of your group is severely wounded and won't last long without medical supplies stashed in a building across a street covered by a sniper and your only weapon is an old hunting rifle with a couple bullets. Something like that, something that you actually play through would be far more emotionally investing than any of these crappy attempts at provoking emotion through means both insincere and totally divorced from the gameplay.

BeerTent:
COD: 'ey shoot da tings an' dey fall dow bredda

Indie Scene: Let's tackle a subject that's very real, thought provoking, and highly engaging.
This War of Mine: 10/10 Must buy.

The problem, however, is Indie devs have generally no experience with the "real" scenarios they try to create, so it ends up feeling like an insincere mish-mosh of superficially mature jibberish, and at that point I'd really rather have things being as fantastical and dumb as possible. I don't dislike the concept itself, and welcome it provided it doesn't try to hard to emulate real life, since it is, after all, a game.

I'm also pretty sick of games attempting to market themselves solely based on the hilarious gimmick of being overblown and melodramatic as an excuse for the developers not understanding how to write or design subtlety into anything, so hopefully the developers of TWoM know what they're doing.

El Comandante:
This looks very interesting! Could be good.

Therumancer:
You don't see say "Master Chief" throw some 12 year old Alien child who happened to join the opposing youth corps up against the wall with a dozen more like him and cut loose with a mini-gun, or say force a village to dig a trench, line the people up inside of it, and then machine gun all of them and cover it with a bulldozer, because that kind of crap just isn't fun. It's a necessary part of a real war (because it scares the living hell out of people, at first they become angry and line up to face you, but as you do it more and more, and it becomes inevitable, the spirit breaks and people will pretty much be willing to agree to what would otherwise be unthinkable terms to avoid it happening to them).

Genocid is not a necessary part of a real war! These crimes happen during a war because it is often thought to be the easy way. Maybe sometimes it is, but then you need to be very "rigorous". Otherwise it will come back and violence is going to happen again. The suffering comes with war but it´s not an necessary evil, it´s a direct or indirect consequence.
You named Bomber Harris and I think you allready said his tactic of demoralisation didn´t work. In fact it did´t the oppsite, most people already had given up all hope, but the fought on sometimes purly to get some kind of revenge. The nazi-propaganda was able to use these bombings to strech out the suffering even more. Here in germany even today neo-nazi-groups use these crimes as some sick kind of justification.

Actually "Bomber"'s tactics worked beautifully which is why he was lionized, and decorated by both his own people (the UK) and the US. He's just one example as well. By many accounts Patton himself would be considered "unworthy to wear the uniform" by the standards which politicians hold the military today.

The thing is that these tactics work, indeed they are the only tactics that truly work, which is why for the most part every "war" which has not employed them has been a failure. It's very true that the US military has not actually won a serious armed conflict since World War II, and the morality with which we try and fight is a big part of it. Those that try and buck the politicians and engage in real warfare, as per what we did to win World War II, are frequently considered war criminals and punished by their own people (ie us), and oftentimes have to try and hide their actions, as opposed to being decorated for doing the horrible, horrible, things that nobody wants to do, but must ultimately be done.

It should also be noted that groups like the UN have tried to re-define genocide substantially over the years, and in general liberals try and use that definition. In a proper sense genocide is when you are genuinely trying to kill ALL of a given people, and furthermore requires a people to be defined by ethnicity, as opposed to culture or beliefs. The Holocaust was an attempt at genocide, "ethnic cleaning" is an attempt at genocide, simply attacking large numbers of civilians is not genocide. If your going to try and frame it negatively it's properly "mass murder" but at the same time in war "murder" is not really a crime anymore when inflicted on the enemy. The idea of the tactics I'm mentioning are to end resistance, stop militias (people just defending their home), and of course shatter an idealogy by making it so a people are willing to surrender and give up what their culture has believes in for survival. For the most part if you say killed everyone in Germany, it wouldn't be genocide in a proper sense, as the white ethnicity would continue to survive, all you'd really be doing is destroying a specific culture. The UN tries to extent "genocide" to encompass cultures, but really that's stupid, and kind of hippocritical. At the end of the day it's generally a political move to try and end wars, and as a principle wasn't established when looking at cultures that are pretty much destructive to all other cultures. It's also noteworthy that by this liberal-redefinition we would have been considered guilty of "genocide" towards the Nazis, as would the current Germany government. After all that's an idealogy (an offensive one, like a lot of other cultures now), and one we continued to persecute for decades after the war ended, hunting down minor military figures (camp guards, etc...) who had long since stopped fighting and were pretty much just minding their own business. You might say "but that's different" but really it's not. That's what it takes to truly defeat an idealogy like that. You'll also notice you haven't exactly seen the UN backing "Nazi Pride parades" in Germany which has taken upon itself to be among the most harsh in attacking it.

At the end of the day you can't "win" a war or end the threat posed by another culture by say invading and trying to tell people what to do while letting the backbone of the culture and the beliefs that caused the problem (the people themselves) remain more or less unmolested. As long as the ideas continue more or less unfettered, you ensure more fighters, covert if not overt, will always be stepping up to face you. It's why despite our ideals of doing things like bringing women's sufferage to The Middle East, and helping the culture become progressive, we failed, seeing both Afghanistan and Iraq pass constitutions that declared themselves Islamic states (as opposed to nations where most people merely happen to be Islamic). The cultures by and large continued doing what they were doing, the worst excesses held back merely by gun toting Americans being everywhere and the possibility we could always change our mind. As many critics of "The War On Terror" have pointed out, we literally accomplished almost nothing trying to pursue a "war" in this fashion.

Now don't get me wrong, as I've said many times (and people tend not to get) I'm not saying mass murder is a nice thing, rather than it sucks, but it happens to be the reality when a war happens. It's also why while I'm a militant I believe in only going to war when there are good reasons for it (I am simply opposed to people who have "peace at any price" sentiments, but that's an entirely different discussion).

The overall point of this is that if your doing a game where a proper war is presumably being fought, either between humans and aliens, or two human factions, or whatever else, with the premise being that either side could presumably win (and perhaps with the starting assumption that the player's side is slowly losing in the beginning), these kinds of tactics are what is going to be being used. It just doesn't make a for a fun game though, both from a challenge perspective, and also because it's supposed to be entertaining, and really blowing away some 12 year old because he happened to be conditioned by the other side (Hitler Youth style) is a nasty thing, the kind of thing that needs to happen but people don't want to think about. This is why such games tend to focus on confrontations between military forces, and usually in fairly isolated areas where there aren't civilians around (or where the civilians are presumed already dead before the PC gets there). Games that have put civilians into games have generally made them more of an annoyance than a fun part of gameplay as well, or introduced them in such a way (Crusader) that they are functionally just a loot drop that doesn't fire back.

As I said, a game where your trying to survive/guide a bunch of people through a war zone could be interesting if done right, I mean functionally it's pretty much a stealth game. But doesn't strike me as being an intristically good idea or one with a valid message which some people might get from it. Not to mention that making something like this "fun" is always a big question. Violence against civilians is a necessary part of a real war, something people need to understand, especially nowadays, but it's not something people really want to see in the scope of an entertainment product which is pretty much why nobody has gone there.

To put things into one final perspective, there have been a few different video games over the years that let you play both sides of an old war. The Nazis are a popular choice for this, and it seems to always get some degree of controversy. The "fun" of it is that the Nazis had some really interesting weapons in terms of tanks, planes, and weapons that were in development but were never deployed (leading to some "what if" scenarios). People playing such games want to command some kind of super-tank, or one of the Luftwaffe's cooler planes, and that kind of thing, which is why such games for all the complaints tend to focus on the fighting as well. In general you only see sociopaths creating say "concentration camp simulators" and focusing on that aspect of the war. The same thing applies to the good guys albeit without the same inherent controversy, in reality we were just as bad in our atrocities when you get down to it, but nobody wants to play that, they just want to drive an awesome tank, or fight a battle, or whatever.

In theory you could say make a war game where your heroic GIs were say invading a city trying to get the Nazi elite out of their final bunkers, battling building to building, with most of the opposition coming from "Volkssturm" who were largely civilians simply trying to protect their homes, with the actual military NAzis not showing up until the final bits where you actually get to where "Colonel Von Evil" is shacked up or whatever. Over the years I've seen pictures of body piles and mass graves the US/UK/Russians left behind when they went on the offense, and it's just as sobering as the concentration camp footage (and deeply ingrained in certain anti-US propaganda). Again that's not fun, and exactly why when you start a level your PC is typically right in front of Colonel Von Evil's doom fortress (or on the final approach to it) rather than focusing on all the stuff you presumably needed to do in order to get there.

 

Reply to Thread

Your account does not have posting rights. If you feel this is in error, please contact an administrator. (ID# 54106)