The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
While watching the TV the other day, the advert for Medal of Honour: Frontline came on. If you’ve seen it, you’ll know that it starts off with footage from the real D-Day Landing in 1944 and then goes on to show Frontline’s rendition of it. This got me thinking, is it really right to make games based on real wars?
The main argument I have against the making of games about actual wars is the fact that real people fought and died. The World Wars weren’t a rather nasty argument with a bit of pushing and shoving; they were, as the name suggests, World Wars. People died, innocent civilians, not only soldiers (most of who were conscripted anyway). Is it fair to trivialise these people’s lives by pixel-ating them and paying people to give them their voices? Really, I think you’d have to be insane to say “Yes” to that.
In the same vein, your actions don’t really have consequences. Sure the person you’re controlling may die and you’ll have to do the level again, but that’s not what I mean. Imagine the scene: You’re in an evacuated civilian house defending against an attack and trying to hold this territory. Suddenly, a grenade comes flying in through the window and explodes. You somehow survive but the house falls to the ground. In the game, this doesn’t matter, but in the real war, that would be a real persons house and when the war is over, they’d have nowhere to live. This all trivialises the fact that this war was real; it did happen, as did the killing. But not the killing of pixels, the killing of people who most probably left a family behind too. This war destroyed thousands of people’s lives, but Frontline turns it into a highly enjoyable experience in which people dying doesn’t really matter.
Now, for the counter argument.
This game is just that, a game. True it’s based on real events, but none of the people in it (to my knowledge) are based on real people who fought and died. If the soldiers in it were real soldiers, then I would not hesitate in proclaiming it quite sickening. But it’s not; the soldiers contained within it are made up characters whose actions are dictated by human programming. In my mind, this makes it quite acceptable.
Also, the two World Wars were incredibly historic events, if the outcome of them had been different, then we would probably be living in am entirely different world right now. It is important to educate children about them and that is done, not only, in schools but also in other forms of media. The amount of films and books made and written about the two World Wars and actually pretty much any other war that has taken place, is quite astonishing. Yet people don’t complain about these despite them containing the same concept as war-based games.
One of MOH:F’s main selling points is its realism and historical accuracy; it depicts many events that really happened, albeit not with real people. This same sort of thing has happened in films, most notably “Saving Private Ryan” the events in which are real; indeed, Saving Private Ryan is sometimes used as a classroom aide when learning about World War II. So if this happens and is accepted, then I really see no reason why games in the same vein shouldn’t be treated in just the same way.
RBS’s Final Thought (Me, break copyrights?! NEVER!): The only real modern comparison that can be made to this subject is the September 11th attacks. If a commercial game were made about these (and I think that actually a flight-sim has been produced and is available for download) there would be a mighty uproar of people branding such a game as “sick” and “horrifying”. Again this would probably happen if a film were made about it too, yet films and games about the World Wars don’t receive that much backlash (do they? I’m pretty sure they don’t…) Why is this? I think it’s because the World Wars happened relatively a long time ago, but the September 11th attacks happened only last year and the consequences of them are still very fresh in people’s minds. But when you look at it, the World Wars *weren’t* that long ago, they were in fact in people’s lifetimes who are still alive today yet films and books about these wars are deemed acceptable so I really see no reason at all why the games shouldn’t be.
And as a little side-note, I can't wait for the GC version of Frontline :-)
Thanks for reading.
RBS
The main argument I have against the making of games about actual wars is the fact that real people fought and died. The World Wars weren’t a rather nasty argument with a bit of pushing and shoving; they were, as the name suggests, World Wars. People died, innocent civilians, not only soldiers (most of who were conscripted anyway). Is it fair to trivialise these people’s lives by pixel-ating them and paying people to give them their voices? Really, I think you’d have to be insane to say “Yes” to that.
In the same vein, your actions don’t really have consequences. Sure the person you’re controlling may die and you’ll have to do the level again, but that’s not what I mean. Imagine the scene: You’re in an evacuated civilian house defending against an attack and trying to hold this territory. Suddenly, a grenade comes flying in through the window and explodes. You somehow survive but the house falls to the ground. In the game, this doesn’t matter, but in the real war, that would be a real persons house and when the war is over, they’d have nowhere to live. This all trivialises the fact that this war was real; it did happen, as did the killing. But not the killing of pixels, the killing of people who most probably left a family behind too. This war destroyed thousands of people’s lives, but Frontline turns it into a highly enjoyable experience in which people dying doesn’t really matter.
Now, for the counter argument.
This game is just that, a game. True it’s based on real events, but none of the people in it (to my knowledge) are based on real people who fought and died. If the soldiers in it were real soldiers, then I would not hesitate in proclaiming it quite sickening. But it’s not; the soldiers contained within it are made up characters whose actions are dictated by human programming. In my mind, this makes it quite acceptable.
Also, the two World Wars were incredibly historic events, if the outcome of them had been different, then we would probably be living in am entirely different world right now. It is important to educate children about them and that is done, not only, in schools but also in other forms of media. The amount of films and books made and written about the two World Wars and actually pretty much any other war that has taken place, is quite astonishing. Yet people don’t complain about these despite them containing the same concept as war-based games.
One of MOH:F’s main selling points is its realism and historical accuracy; it depicts many events that really happened, albeit not with real people. This same sort of thing has happened in films, most notably “Saving Private Ryan” the events in which are real; indeed, Saving Private Ryan is sometimes used as a classroom aide when learning about World War II. So if this happens and is accepted, then I really see no reason why games in the same vein shouldn’t be treated in just the same way.
RBS’s Final Thought (Me, break copyrights?! NEVER!): The only real modern comparison that can be made to this subject is the September 11th attacks. If a commercial game were made about these (and I think that actually a flight-sim has been produced and is available for download) there would be a mighty uproar of people branding such a game as “sick” and “horrifying”. Again this would probably happen if a film were made about it too, yet films and games about the World Wars don’t receive that much backlash (do they? I’m pretty sure they don’t…) Why is this? I think it’s because the World Wars happened relatively a long time ago, but the September 11th attacks happened only last year and the consequences of them are still very fresh in people’s minds. But when you look at it, the World Wars *weren’t* that long ago, they were in fact in people’s lifetimes who are still alive today yet films and books about these wars are deemed acceptable so I really see no reason at all why the games shouldn’t be.
And as a little side-note, I can't wait for the GC version of Frontline :-)
Thanks for reading.
RBS
®²ºº¹uK wrote:
> I don't know, Posh Kid, I just can't see there being a game, or even a
> movie based on Sept. 11. It's just morally incorrect, sick if you
> will. War games are based on war, not massacre at the hands of
> terrorism.
That doesn't make much difference, look at Pearl Harbour.
> And anyway, the Sept. 11 attack is too specific for a game, whereas
> war games don't focus on one main event, they just cover the theme and
> feel of war
A September 11th game would be hard to make as there can't be much of a gaming plot of it.
But I wouldn't be surprised at all if some sort of game was made in the future based on countries like Britain and America against terrorism.
> I don't know, Posh Kid, I just can't see there being a game, or even a
> movie based on Sept. 11. It's just morally incorrect, sick if you
> will. War games are based on war, not massacre at the hands of
> terrorism.
That doesn't make much difference, look at Pearl Harbour.
> And anyway, the Sept. 11 attack is too specific for a game, whereas
> war games don't focus on one main event, they just cover the theme and
> feel of war
A September 11th game would be hard to make as there can't be much of a gaming plot of it.
But I wouldn't be surprised at all if some sort of game was made in the future based on countries like Britain and America against terrorism.
Cheers for your comments, everyone.
Ah yes Chris. Very good stuff, award this man GAD..
®²ºº¹uK wrote:
> I just can't see there being a
> movie based on Sept. 11.
I can. It's American made. In it, the Americans counter act the attack and no one gets killed, then America single handedly wipes out all forms of terrorism and all crime in the entire world. Then every other country decides that America is the best country in the world and decides to make America the leader country of the world.
> I just can't see there being a
> movie based on Sept. 11.
I can. It's American made. In it, the Americans counter act the attack and no one gets killed, then America single handedly wipes out all forms of terrorism and all crime in the entire world. Then every other country decides that America is the best country in the world and decides to make America the leader country of the world.
®²ºº¹uK wrote:
> I don't know, Posh Kid, I just can't see there being a game, or even a
> movie based on Sept. 11. It's just morally incorrect, sick if you
> will. War games are based on war, not massacre at the hands of
> terrorism.
That is how people would have thought at the time of a war if games were around then, so what stops someone repeating the same pattern sometime very late?
It may not be to most of our liking, but it still remains a possibility, especially if the Afghanistans become developers!
NEVERRRRR!!!!!
> I don't know, Posh Kid, I just can't see there being a game, or even a
> movie based on Sept. 11. It's just morally incorrect, sick if you
> will. War games are based on war, not massacre at the hands of
> terrorism.
That is how people would have thought at the time of a war if games were around then, so what stops someone repeating the same pattern sometime very late?
It may not be to most of our liking, but it still remains a possibility, especially if the Afghanistans become developers!
NEVERRRRR!!!!!
Rasta, Top post! I reckon you'll be receiving a GAD for that pretty soon!
I don't know, Posh Kid, I just can't see there being a game, or even a movie based on Sept. 11. It's just morally incorrect, sick if you will. War games are based on war, not massacre at the hands of terrorism.
And anyway, the Sept. 11 attack is too specific for a game, whereas war games don't focus on one main event, they just cover the theme and feel of war
And anyway, the Sept. 11 attack is too specific for a game, whereas war games don't focus on one main event, they just cover the theme and feel of war
Great post Rasta.
Much worthy of a GAD!
There really is nothing wrong with war games, just as long as they aren't too accurate to certain events and not too close to the time of the event. Like you said, it wouldn't be right if someone made a game on the Sept. 11th event because it's just too soon, but as time moves on (about 50 years) someone somewhere is going to take the risk of imitating this memorable event.
The beauty of war games is learning war tactics and using the weapons.
It's all fascinating stuff!
Great post!
Much worthy of a GAD!
There really is nothing wrong with war games, just as long as they aren't too accurate to certain events and not too close to the time of the event. Like you said, it wouldn't be right if someone made a game on the Sept. 11th event because it's just too soon, but as time moves on (about 50 years) someone somewhere is going to take the risk of imitating this memorable event.
The beauty of war games is learning war tactics and using the weapons.
It's all fascinating stuff!
Great post!
While watching the TV the other day, the advert for Medal of Honour: Frontline came on. If you’ve seen it, you’ll know that it starts off with footage from the real D-Day Landing in 1944 and then goes on to show Frontline’s rendition of it. This got me thinking, is it really right to make games based on real wars?
The main argument I have against the making of games about actual wars is the fact that real people fought and died. The World Wars weren’t a rather nasty argument with a bit of pushing and shoving; they were, as the name suggests, World Wars. People died, innocent civilians, not only soldiers (most of who were conscripted anyway). Is it fair to trivialise these people’s lives by pixel-ating them and paying people to give them their voices? Really, I think you’d have to be insane to say “Yes” to that.
In the same vein, your actions don’t really have consequences. Sure the person you’re controlling may die and you’ll have to do the level again, but that’s not what I mean. Imagine the scene: You’re in an evacuated civilian house defending against an attack and trying to hold this territory. Suddenly, a grenade comes flying in through the window and explodes. You somehow survive but the house falls to the ground. In the game, this doesn’t matter, but in the real war, that would be a real persons house and when the war is over, they’d have nowhere to live. This all trivialises the fact that this war was real; it did happen, as did the killing. But not the killing of pixels, the killing of people who most probably left a family behind too. This war destroyed thousands of people’s lives, but Frontline turns it into a highly enjoyable experience in which people dying doesn’t really matter.
Now, for the counter argument.
This game is just that, a game. True it’s based on real events, but none of the people in it (to my knowledge) are based on real people who fought and died. If the soldiers in it were real soldiers, then I would not hesitate in proclaiming it quite sickening. But it’s not; the soldiers contained within it are made up characters whose actions are dictated by human programming. In my mind, this makes it quite acceptable.
Also, the two World Wars were incredibly historic events, if the outcome of them had been different, then we would probably be living in am entirely different world right now. It is important to educate children about them and that is done, not only, in schools but also in other forms of media. The amount of films and books made and written about the two World Wars and actually pretty much any other war that has taken place, is quite astonishing. Yet people don’t complain about these despite them containing the same concept as war-based games.
One of MOH:F’s main selling points is its realism and historical accuracy; it depicts many events that really happened, albeit not with real people. This same sort of thing has happened in films, most notably “Saving Private Ryan” the events in which are real; indeed, Saving Private Ryan is sometimes used as a classroom aide when learning about World War II. So if this happens and is accepted, then I really see no reason why games in the same vein shouldn’t be treated in just the same way.
RBS’s Final Thought (Me, break copyrights?! NEVER!): The only real modern comparison that can be made to this subject is the September 11th attacks. If a commercial game were made about these (and I think that actually a flight-sim has been produced and is available for download) there would be a mighty uproar of people branding such a game as “sick” and “horrifying”. Again this would probably happen if a film were made about it too, yet films and games about the World Wars don’t receive that much backlash (do they? I’m pretty sure they don’t…) Why is this? I think it’s because the World Wars happened relatively a long time ago, but the September 11th attacks happened only last year and the consequences of them are still very fresh in people’s minds. But when you look at it, the World Wars *weren’t* that long ago, they were in fact in people’s lifetimes who are still alive today yet films and books about these wars are deemed acceptable so I really see no reason at all why the games shouldn’t be.
And as a little side-note, I can't wait for the GC version of Frontline :-)
Thanks for reading.
RBS
The main argument I have against the making of games about actual wars is the fact that real people fought and died. The World Wars weren’t a rather nasty argument with a bit of pushing and shoving; they were, as the name suggests, World Wars. People died, innocent civilians, not only soldiers (most of who were conscripted anyway). Is it fair to trivialise these people’s lives by pixel-ating them and paying people to give them their voices? Really, I think you’d have to be insane to say “Yes” to that.
In the same vein, your actions don’t really have consequences. Sure the person you’re controlling may die and you’ll have to do the level again, but that’s not what I mean. Imagine the scene: You’re in an evacuated civilian house defending against an attack and trying to hold this territory. Suddenly, a grenade comes flying in through the window and explodes. You somehow survive but the house falls to the ground. In the game, this doesn’t matter, but in the real war, that would be a real persons house and when the war is over, they’d have nowhere to live. This all trivialises the fact that this war was real; it did happen, as did the killing. But not the killing of pixels, the killing of people who most probably left a family behind too. This war destroyed thousands of people’s lives, but Frontline turns it into a highly enjoyable experience in which people dying doesn’t really matter.
Now, for the counter argument.
This game is just that, a game. True it’s based on real events, but none of the people in it (to my knowledge) are based on real people who fought and died. If the soldiers in it were real soldiers, then I would not hesitate in proclaiming it quite sickening. But it’s not; the soldiers contained within it are made up characters whose actions are dictated by human programming. In my mind, this makes it quite acceptable.
Also, the two World Wars were incredibly historic events, if the outcome of them had been different, then we would probably be living in am entirely different world right now. It is important to educate children about them and that is done, not only, in schools but also in other forms of media. The amount of films and books made and written about the two World Wars and actually pretty much any other war that has taken place, is quite astonishing. Yet people don’t complain about these despite them containing the same concept as war-based games.
One of MOH:F’s main selling points is its realism and historical accuracy; it depicts many events that really happened, albeit not with real people. This same sort of thing has happened in films, most notably “Saving Private Ryan” the events in which are real; indeed, Saving Private Ryan is sometimes used as a classroom aide when learning about World War II. So if this happens and is accepted, then I really see no reason why games in the same vein shouldn’t be treated in just the same way.
RBS’s Final Thought (Me, break copyrights?! NEVER!): The only real modern comparison that can be made to this subject is the September 11th attacks. If a commercial game were made about these (and I think that actually a flight-sim has been produced and is available for download) there would be a mighty uproar of people branding such a game as “sick” and “horrifying”. Again this would probably happen if a film were made about it too, yet films and games about the World Wars don’t receive that much backlash (do they? I’m pretty sure they don’t…) Why is this? I think it’s because the World Wars happened relatively a long time ago, but the September 11th attacks happened only last year and the consequences of them are still very fresh in people’s minds. But when you look at it, the World Wars *weren’t* that long ago, they were in fact in people’s lifetimes who are still alive today yet films and books about these wars are deemed acceptable so I really see no reason at all why the games shouldn’t be.
And as a little side-note, I can't wait for the GC version of Frontline :-)
Thanks for reading.
RBS