This War of Mine - The Ultimate Serious Game

This War of Mine - The Ultimate Serious Game

The idea that games can't describe important social topics like the effect of war on the civilian population is kind of bullshit.

Read Full Article

Greg Tito:
This War Is Mine - The Ultimate Serious Game

The idea that games can't describe important social topics like the effect of war on the civilian population is kind of bullshit.

Read Full Article

Erm, I don't mean to be 'that guy', but isn't it This War of Mine?

Anyway, on the topic of the game, I'm definitely looking forward to it. It's about time gaming tackled something like this, especially given the medium's love for military settings. Hopefully the developers will be able to expand on what they have so far and deliver something really special.

For some reason I cannot put my finger on, I don't like the writing in this piece. The game however looks amazingly promising, and the trailer is both simple and impacting.

Tactical Pause:

Greg Tito:
This War Is Mine - The Ultimate Serious Game

The idea that games can't describe important social topics like the effect of war on the civilian population is kind of bullshit.

Read Full Article

Erm, I don't mean to be 'that guy', but isn't it This War of Mine?

Anyway, on the topic of the game, I'm definitely looking forward to it. It's about time gaming tackled something like this, especially given the medium's love for military settings. Hopefully the developers will be able to expand on what they have so far and deliver something really special.

You are correct. I am dumb. Fixed!

Greg

Can't we say that the first proper war is hell game was Spec Ops: The Line?
That and Company of Heroes 2 are the only two games I can think of that had a War is Hell vibe, but neither of those showed a civilian perspective. Well, CoH2 had a conscript who doesn't understand war at the start, but it's not the same as a modern conflict.

i was really hoping the gameplay was going to be a fairly straightforward copy-paste of State Of Decay, with a bombed out aesthetic as opposed to a zombie apocalypse setting, but regardless, i still find this idea fascinating and will probably play it. still, i think there is a definite potential for whoever decides to combine the gameplay of SoD with the topic and setting of This War. here's hoping someone with ability thinks the same.

Some of the features the article writer is upset about not including would likely, in my mind, take away from the entire experience. I mean, I'd think that such a seriuos tone and topic would conflict with having everybody named and customized to look like you're friends so that you can send the message "lol, you just got shanked by a kid who lured you into a trap!" via Steam messaging. Not to mention that I think it'd undermine the point is that many, if not all, these people are either strangers or people whose names you barely know. XCOM is a strategy game, a series that I love, but it has no real message, no tone, and you can't slap stuff thats fitting on a relatively arcade-y strategy game onto a game with a very serious tone, a game that is aiming to specifically be not-fun, just because its also a strategy game.

Additionally, "not fun" can work in a game. Spec Ops: The Line and The Walking Dead were both not fun games, but were two of the best games of 2012, meanwhile Papers, Please was generally not pleasant, but it was many people's GOTY for 2013. I think it'd be better to revise the most immortal sin that a videogame can commit to being neither fun nor interesting, rather than just fun.

Hazzard:
Can't we say that the first proper war is hell game was Spec Ops: The Line?
That and Company of Heroes 2 are the only two games I can think of that had a War is Hell vibe, but neither of those showed a civilian perspective. Well, CoH2 had a conscript who doesn't understand war at the start, but it's not the same as a modern conflict.

One could argue that The Radioman from SOTL was the perspective from a civilian. Granted, its a priviledged civilian, but I think that may be the point - that while he's a non-combatant, he provides some perspective for various groups of civilians. He felt the same way about the Delta Squad as the civilians did, but he was emotionally detached from it all.

Wait... a 2-D survival-horror game focused on resource management, where you give out orders, then time-skip and hope that everyone comes back alive?

Why yes, I have never seen any of the ten million zombie-survival flash games on newgrounds that do exactly that.

Forgive me, but I had hoped for a first person stealth-survival game with perhaps some kind of social minigame where you had to try to figure out if the person you were talking to is lying, just scared, or perhaps about to mug you.

I have seen so many zombie games on newgrounds that have done this that I'm quite frankly not impressed. Sure, the specific framing device for the game is novel enough: 99% of the games that do this usually use zombie apocalypse as their excuse, or perhaps the odd post-nuclear apocalypse setting - but a mid-war "you are a civilian and shit is going down" setting? That has never really been touched upon, outside of that one experimental first person civil-war simulator I was shown by some master students when I studied.

So ya... consider my expectations greatly diminished.

Of course, for anyone who didn't play turn-based zombie survival flash games for days on end back in their late teens, I can see how this would look like a novel and possibly never seen before concept.

Well this feels weird. I suggested a pretty similar game idea just a week before I heard that this was in the making. Glad someone is developing it! Though I must admit that this concept has been around for a while. There was some flash game I played a few years back where the objective is to avoid being captured by milita in a war-torn country.

This kinda reminds me of Organ Trail, but a bit less refined.

I can see Greg's criticisms though and by the description of the game, it's pretty valid, this game could be much more, heck, Organ Trail looks like a Commodore 64 game, but it's pretty much a complete experience.

So this game is the illegitimate child of "Gods Will be Watching" and the stereotype of eastern-European movies isn't it?

What they need to do is pair up with Yager (Spec Ops: The Line). That would be such an awesome partnership.

webkilla:
Wait... a 2-D survival-horror game focused on resource management, where you give out orders, then time-skip and hope that everyone comes back alive?

Why yes, I have never seen any of the ten million zombie-survival flash games on newgrounds that do exactly that.

This is my thought as well. I mean, I really appreciate what the devs are going for and, if done right, I think it could be a fantastic experience. What it sounds like they've actually created, however, is just a reskinned survival game like we've seen over and over repeatedly for the last few years.

Does this mean we can stop with serious games and go back to having fun?

I'm not saying they don't have their place. Serious games can and often are good. That said, if it comes down to a fight between Grimdark and Noblebright, I'm on Team Noblebright.

Arnoxthe1:
What they need to do is pair up with Yager (Spec Ops: The Line). That would be such an awesome partnership.

Because we really need another pretentious, player hating, derivative whole-plot-of-Heart-o'-Darkness referencing game out there.

Yager was more concerned with lecturing the player than delivering an entertaining experience. What these War of Mine people need to do is stay far, far away from them.

(sorry to call your post out, Spec-Ops is one of my personal bugbears)

StriderShinryu:

webkilla:
Wait... a 2-D survival-horror game focused on resource management, where you give out orders, then time-skip and hope that everyone comes back alive?

Why yes, I have never seen any of the ten million zombie-survival flash games on newgrounds that do exactly that.

This is my thought as well. I mean, I really appreciate what the devs are going for and, if done right, I think it could be a fantastic experience. What it sounds like they've actually created, however, is just a reskinned survival game like we've seen over and over repeatedly for the last few years.

This type of thing seems better suited to a 2D stealth game. Trying to avoid firefights whilst desperately attempting to escape and survive in a warzone would be a great twist on those 'powerless' type games. Stripped of the fantasy comforts of zombies and the like a game like that could be powerfully real. I'd like to see some of that lush 3D art used for something other than a few management screens and text boxes.

"Limbo in a war zone" would be more what i would hope for from a game like this. The game needs to be visceral and immediate.

Machine Man 1992:
Because we really need another pretentious, player hating, derivative whole-plot-of-Heart-o'-Darkness referencing game out there.

Yager was more concerned with lecturing the player than delivering an entertaining experience. What these War of Mine people need to do is stay far, far away from them.

Who is the actual protagonist of reviewer darling The Last of Us? (There is a point to this , just answer)

Goliath100:

Machine Man 1992:
Because we really need another pretentious, player hating, derivative whole-plot-of-Heart-o'-Darkness referencing game out there.

Yager was more concerned with lecturing the player than delivering an entertaining experience. What these War of Mine people need to do is stay far, far away from them.

Who is the actual protagonist of reviewer darling The Last of Us? (There is a point to this , just answer)

Dueteragonist team Ellie and Joel would be the obvious answer. But, that would be too easy; Joel is most protagonist-y of the characters, seeing as how you play as him and the entire story is told from his perspective.

Machine Man 1992:
Dueteragonist team Ellie and Joel would be the obvious answer. But, that would be too easy; Joel is most protagonist-y of the characters, seeing as how you play as him and the entire story is told from his perspective.

Wrong! It's the player. This is a quirk of games, the true protagonist is and will always be the player, even with games like The Last of Us, who is in denial over this consept. But, think about how the game treats its mistaken protagonist: Having, you know, character arcs. Spec Ops basically does the same, but with the player as the intended protagonist, which means the player need their own arc.

Does this game have a release date yet or no?

Goliath100:

Machine Man 1992:
Dueteragonist team Ellie and Joel would be the obvious answer. But, that would be too easy; Joel is most protagonist-y of the characters, seeing as how you play as him and the entire story is told from his perspective.

Wrong! It's the player. This is a quirk of games, the true protagonist is and will always be the player, even with games like The Last of Us, who is in denial over this consept. But, think about how the game treats its mistaken protagonist: Having, you know, character arcs. Spec Ops basically does the same, but with the player as the intended protagonist, which means the player need their own arc.

Ho, ho! Very clever Mr. Goliath.

Main issue with giving a player an "arc" is that most people don't play games to be developed; we play games for fun.

One of the problems I had with Spec Ops is that the game tried to tell me how to feel. To paraphrase Alex Mercer, "I don't play to feel." If Spec Ops was trying to be shocking with it's violence, then it fell several (hundred) meters too short.

Machine Man 1992:

Arnoxthe1:
What they need to do is pair up with Yager (Spec Ops: The Line). That would be such an awesome partnership.

Because we really need another pretentious, player hating, derivative whole-plot-of-Heart-o'-Darkness referencing game out there.

Yager was more concerned with lecturing the player than delivering an entertaining experience. What these War of Mine people need to do is stay far, far away from them.

(sorry to call your post out, Spec-Ops is one of my personal bugbears)

Actually, I'm sure Yager was only trying to lecture specific players.

Machine Man 1992:
we play games for fun.

My experience with that argument is that people only use it when it is convenient. And you are putting limitations on the medium. If "fun" is all games can be, I'll welcome back Jack Thompsen.

One of the problems I had with Spec Ops is that the game tried to tell me how to feel.

Really? How come than that of endings we have; self destruction, acceptance, rejection and failure of rejection (+early realisation)? Rejection is a valid end to the arc.

Goliath100:

Machine Man 1992:
we play games for fun.

My experience with that argument is that people only use it when it is convenient. And you are putting limitations on the medium. If "fun" is all games can be, I'll welcome back Jack Thompsen.

One of the problems I had with Spec Ops is that the game tried to tell me how to feel.

Really? How come than that of endings we have; self destruction, acceptance, rejection and failure of rejection (+early realisation)? Rejection is a valid end to the arc.

The endings I had no problem with, the rest of the story I rejected as hogwash.

Or maybe I just found the whole game rather tiring.

I was actually baffled at the White Phosphorus scene, because the characters were flipping the fuck out, and I felt nothing. I didn't know these people, why should I care? What made them so much more valuable than the dozens, no, hundreds of American soldiers I just finished murdering?

The whole game was just silly, and weirdly inconsistent with how it treated gameplay and story.

Machine Man 1992:
The whole game was ... weirdly inconsistent with how it treated gameplay and story.

In what way, I may ask?

Goliath100:

Machine Man 1992:
The whole game was ... weirdly inconsistent with how it treated gameplay and story.

In what way, I may ask?

Well, the gameplay was bog standard Gears of War third person shooting. When you shoot people in the face, their heads explode in a red mist (leaving a clean stump like what you get from messing with the body sliders in Garry's mod) with a slo-mo flourish. Downed enemies can be executed in hilariously over the top fashion. Walker screams at the top of his lungs throughout most of the game in a way that becomes silly with repetition.

My point is, in a game that tries to be Very Serious and Important, it doesn't do a lot in game to be Very Serious and Important (I found it rather pedestrian and dull, but that's besides the point). If the game wanted to be a commentary on the nature of war and what is evil, then having us get into gunfights every few minutes wasn't the answer.

Know what I'm saying?

Ludonarrative discobiscuits.

Machine Man 1992:
snip

I'm noticing that people that dislike Spec Ops seems to miss the point: It's not about "nature of war" or "what is evil", it's about challenging the Status Que. Thematically, it's more about faith than anything to do with war.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYgQHgxc3hI&list=UULcrvh5KKB15iBwHXqxBcpw

Goliath100:

Machine Man 1992:
snip

I'm noticing that people that dislike Spec Ops seems to miss the point: It's not about "nature of war" or "what is evil", it's about challenging the Status Que. Thematically, it's more about faith than anything to do with war.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYgQHgxc3hI&list=UULcrvh5KKB15iBwHXqxBcpw

Perhaps those people who hated the game were just sick of the constant fellatio the game commentator community were performing on it.

Even still, I found Spec Ops to be a poor TPS with a story that had done before and better in Far Cry 2.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uX808yR7Qh0

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here