The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
I'm a bit like the Daily Mail in that I disapprove of the content of some computer games. I'm not like the Daily Mail in that I don't want to impose my views on other people. I'm a libertarian: I think that people should be free to play whatever games they please, but I also think that everyone has a right to an opinion - and so here is mine.
This might annoy some people but here is a list of recent games that I have not enjoyed, or don't want to play at all:
Medal of Honour: Allied Assault
Platoon
Vietcong
Conflict Desert Storm
The common thread with these games is that they are all based on real conflicts, and the people who fought in them or lost loved ones are still alive, and still remember. In my personal opinion it just isn't right to base games around these events.
The thing that puts me off playing WWII games is remembering my grandad's experience of war. He was South African and so fought in the long African campaigns; when the Italians captured Tunisia he was made a prisoner of war. He later escaped and roamed the Italian countryside for months, before being recaptured by the Germans. He spent the rest of the war in Stalag Luft I, and almost died of pneumonia. The more adventurous parts of his war would make a pretty good pitch for a computer game nowadays. But there's one problem: it wasn't fun or exciting for him.
When Medal of Honour came out there were lots of glowing reviews, saying that at last a game had recreated the 'horrors of war'. That is a load of rubbish. War is horrible: it kills people, it scars people for life, mentally and physically; there are no quicksaves or cutscenes, and no enjoyment. War stinks, plain and simple. I once asked my grandad how many people he killed during the war: he said "probably none". I don't know if that was true or not, but I do know that I wish I'd never asked him that question. Killing people, real people, is hard; it stays with you forever. Medal of Honour turned his experiences into a bit of a laugh.
And then there are the more modern games, based on the wars in Vietnam and the Gulf. The Vietnam War killed 58,000 Americans and at least a million Vietnamese. It was a completely pointless war, murder on a massive scale, and now we get to play at soldiers. The thing I object to in these games is that your enemies are completely dehumanised: it's just "you're an Arab, bang-bang, now you're dead".
I sincerely doubt that the people playing these games have any understanding of the history of these conflicts, or have ever been in a war themselves. That's fine, but as entertainment it doesn't feel right to me. As I've said, I think people should be free to make up their own minds - but if I had kids I'd be happier letting them play Vice City than Vietcong.
Give me alien genocide any day. Happy shooting!
This might annoy some people but here is a list of recent games that I have not enjoyed, or don't want to play at all:
Medal of Honour: Allied Assault
Platoon
Vietcong
Conflict Desert Storm
The common thread with these games is that they are all based on real conflicts, and the people who fought in them or lost loved ones are still alive, and still remember. In my personal opinion it just isn't right to base games around these events.
The thing that puts me off playing WWII games is remembering my grandad's experience of war. He was South African and so fought in the long African campaigns; when the Italians captured Tunisia he was made a prisoner of war. He later escaped and roamed the Italian countryside for months, before being recaptured by the Germans. He spent the rest of the war in Stalag Luft I, and almost died of pneumonia. The more adventurous parts of his war would make a pretty good pitch for a computer game nowadays. But there's one problem: it wasn't fun or exciting for him.
When Medal of Honour came out there were lots of glowing reviews, saying that at last a game had recreated the 'horrors of war'. That is a load of rubbish. War is horrible: it kills people, it scars people for life, mentally and physically; there are no quicksaves or cutscenes, and no enjoyment. War stinks, plain and simple. I once asked my grandad how many people he killed during the war: he said "probably none". I don't know if that was true or not, but I do know that I wish I'd never asked him that question. Killing people, real people, is hard; it stays with you forever. Medal of Honour turned his experiences into a bit of a laugh.
And then there are the more modern games, based on the wars in Vietnam and the Gulf. The Vietnam War killed 58,000 Americans and at least a million Vietnamese. It was a completely pointless war, murder on a massive scale, and now we get to play at soldiers. The thing I object to in these games is that your enemies are completely dehumanised: it's just "you're an Arab, bang-bang, now you're dead".
I sincerely doubt that the people playing these games have any understanding of the history of these conflicts, or have ever been in a war themselves. That's fine, but as entertainment it doesn't feel right to me. As I've said, I think people should be free to make up their own minds - but if I had kids I'd be happier letting them play Vice City than Vietcong.
Give me alien genocide any day. Happy shooting!
If you can't play a game about war, can you watch a film about one?
If you can't watch a film, what about a documentary, or even the news.
And the argument stretches further. "I've had a bad experience driving a car." Therefore can't play car games, watch formula 1 or cross the road.
IT'S A GAME.
If you can't watch a film, what about a documentary, or even the news.
And the argument stretches further. "I've had a bad experience driving a car." Therefore can't play car games, watch formula 1 or cross the road.
IT'S A GAME.
I think the world is pretty messed up at times.
Not aimed at you unknown kernel as your views to not liking them are straight forward and are entirely *your* views.
We take silly things like games way to serious. Sure some have violence, sex and wars in their theme, but they don't make people evil or want to beat up gays or any other crap like that. In short if you don't like the content don't play it but at the same time they shouldn't be able to force others who may want to play it from doing so.
Then we take the serious things and make a joke out of them, like criminals obtaining compensation for being hurt when breaking into homes or attacking people.
Some say the world is run by monkeys, personally I think monkeys would do a better job of it.
:-)
Not aimed at you unknown kernel as your views to not liking them are straight forward and are entirely *your* views.
We take silly things like games way to serious. Sure some have violence, sex and wars in their theme, but they don't make people evil or want to beat up gays or any other crap like that. In short if you don't like the content don't play it but at the same time they shouldn't be able to force others who may want to play it from doing so.
Then we take the serious things and make a joke out of them, like criminals obtaining compensation for being hurt when breaking into homes or attacking people.
Some say the world is run by monkeys, personally I think monkeys would do a better job of it.
:-)
I played Allied Assault over the weekend and got annoyed trying to keep one of my soldiers alive.
3 of us blowing up Nebelwerfers. Got to a radar bunker and planted an explosive, ran away.
1 soldier just stood there whilst "tick tick tick" and he got blewed up.
Reload, try again. BLAM
Reload, try again. BLAM
I got fed up and left him to writhe in agony in the mud. War is hell.
But the Omaha Beach level is insanity
3 of us blowing up Nebelwerfers. Got to a radar bunker and planted an explosive, ran away.
1 soldier just stood there whilst "tick tick tick" and he got blewed up.
Reload, try again. BLAM
Reload, try again. BLAM
I got fed up and left him to writhe in agony in the mud. War is hell.
But the Omaha Beach level is insanity
unknown kernel wrote:
> Yeah it does, but in (I think) a funny way. I could play Wolfenstein
> all day because, what with the Nazis being in league with aliens, it's
> done in a funny way. I just think that Medal Of Honour has all these
> pretensions to being high art, when in fact its just an FPS in
> uniform. It's all a matter of personal taste really: I find GTA funny
> rather than offensive, others don't; I don't find war games very
> entertaining, others do.
>
> And, just to prove myself a total hypocrite, when I play Civilization
> 3 I nuke everyone in sight. That'll teach em for being foreign.
I never really got the impression Allied Assault was being anything more than a game set in world war 2, I just feel games journalists hyped it up too much as being something more historically accurate.
I remember playing Operation Flashpoint, to this day one of the most realistic war games I've played. I love it, it hugely entertaining game, but it also has a message. Basically war is brutal, it's hard and in the real world it's no fun. I played it enjoying myself, but it also made me think how lucky I was not to be in a situation the game portrayed.
I respect you're opinion though and you do have some valid points, but I love these war game, and I probably always will. I think they make for a much more challenging and rewarding experience.
> Yeah it does, but in (I think) a funny way. I could play Wolfenstein
> all day because, what with the Nazis being in league with aliens, it's
> done in a funny way. I just think that Medal Of Honour has all these
> pretensions to being high art, when in fact its just an FPS in
> uniform. It's all a matter of personal taste really: I find GTA funny
> rather than offensive, others don't; I don't find war games very
> entertaining, others do.
>
> And, just to prove myself a total hypocrite, when I play Civilization
> 3 I nuke everyone in sight. That'll teach em for being foreign.
I never really got the impression Allied Assault was being anything more than a game set in world war 2, I just feel games journalists hyped it up too much as being something more historically accurate.
I remember playing Operation Flashpoint, to this day one of the most realistic war games I've played. I love it, it hugely entertaining game, but it also has a message. Basically war is brutal, it's hard and in the real world it's no fun. I played it enjoying myself, but it also made me think how lucky I was not to be in a situation the game portrayed.
I respect you're opinion though and you do have some valid points, but I love these war game, and I probably always will. I think they make for a much more challenging and rewarding experience.
Most war films (if not all war films) have a strong anti-war message, even if it's hidden (seeing the main character's friend getting killed, then seeing the main character cry may make you ponder about the point of war) whereas games don't have any anti-war messages at all. You're too distanced from it. You play an annoymous character, or somebody who you don't hear speak (Powell in MOH for instance) and it's hard to relate to it. When you see people die in the games, you think "Hey, that looked good!" not "Oh my God!"
Games need to pull the players in more, they need a cast of characters, people who you actually care about, who kill themselves to save you, who you rescue. Seeing THEM get killed might get the message across that war is wrong, and shouldn't happen.
Games need to pull the players in more, they need a cast of characters, people who you actually care about, who kill themselves to save you, who you rescue. Seeing THEM get killed might get the message across that war is wrong, and shouldn't happen.
cipro wrote:
> You say Allied Assault turned the Second World war into a bit of a
> laugh, well if that true then doesn't Vice City turn street crime into
> a bit of a laugh also?
Yeah it does, but in (I think) a funny way. I could play Wolfenstein all day because, what with the Nazis being in league with aliens, it's done in a funny way. I just think that Medal Of Honour has all these pretensions to being high art, when in fact its just an FPS in uniform. It's all a matter of personal taste really: I find GTA funny rather than offensive, others don't; I don't find war games very entertaining, others do.
And, just to prove myself a total hypocrite, when I play Civilization 3 I nuke everyone in sight. That'll teach em for being foreign.
> You say Allied Assault turned the Second World war into a bit of a
> laugh, well if that true then doesn't Vice City turn street crime into
> a bit of a laugh also?
Yeah it does, but in (I think) a funny way. I could play Wolfenstein all day because, what with the Nazis being in league with aliens, it's done in a funny way. I just think that Medal Of Honour has all these pretensions to being high art, when in fact its just an FPS in uniform. It's all a matter of personal taste really: I find GTA funny rather than offensive, others don't; I don't find war games very entertaining, others do.
And, just to prove myself a total hypocrite, when I play Civilization 3 I nuke everyone in sight. That'll teach em for being foreign.
I was playing the Ohmaha beach assult and thought: how awful it would have been in reality. There is obviously no comparison between the two, but at least you get a feel for the absurdity of war when playing such games.
My dictum is that of the Colonial Marines in Aliens: Peace via superior firepower.
My dictum is that of the Colonial Marines in Aliens: Peace via superior firepower.
War has been and always will be the subject for entertainment - be it serious attempts to get across how nasty war can be (Spielberg's "War is Hell" movies) or just for brainless shooty fun (Desert Strike/Jungle Strike etc etc).
It's not just a modern trend either, there were comics called Eagle and Blaze, full of daring-do heroics of Tommy against The Hun. Joseph Conran wrote widely recognised works of serious fiction about war, and pulp airport trash like Bravo Two-Zero.
Movies like Zulu, Dambusters. Games like Medal of Honour, Blitzkrieg and so on and on.
It's cool that you don't think it's morally correct and massive brownie points for saying "I dont want to impose my morals on others", sometimes I agree with the sentiments contained regarding war as entertainment.
But, as pointed out below, I'd rather my kids played a war-themed game than Vice City where illegal criminal behaviour is rewarded with status and bonus cars/mission/uniforms etc.
However, at the end of the day, I'd rather worry about educating kids as to the reasons for war than trying to stop them playing a game about it.
*shrugs*
And Allied Assault is bloody good fun.
It's not just a modern trend either, there were comics called Eagle and Blaze, full of daring-do heroics of Tommy against The Hun. Joseph Conran wrote widely recognised works of serious fiction about war, and pulp airport trash like Bravo Two-Zero.
Movies like Zulu, Dambusters. Games like Medal of Honour, Blitzkrieg and so on and on.
It's cool that you don't think it's morally correct and massive brownie points for saying "I dont want to impose my morals on others", sometimes I agree with the sentiments contained regarding war as entertainment.
But, as pointed out below, I'd rather my kids played a war-themed game than Vice City where illegal criminal behaviour is rewarded with status and bonus cars/mission/uniforms etc.
However, at the end of the day, I'd rather worry about educating kids as to the reasons for war than trying to stop them playing a game about it.
*shrugs*
And Allied Assault is bloody good fun.
unknown kernel wrote:
> but if I had kids I'd be happier letting them play
> Vice City than Vietcong.
Here's the flaw in you're argument. What's the difference between a game based on a real war, and a game based on real life? There are people who have lost loved ones in drive by shootings, hit and runs and random acts of violence, so why is it OK to play Vice City but not a game like Vietcong.
You say Allied Assault turned the Second World war into a bit of a laugh, well if that true then doesn't Vice City turn street crime into a bit of a laugh also?
> but if I had kids I'd be happier letting them play
> Vice City than Vietcong.
Here's the flaw in you're argument. What's the difference between a game based on a real war, and a game based on real life? There are people who have lost loved ones in drive by shootings, hit and runs and random acts of violence, so why is it OK to play Vice City but not a game like Vietcong.
You say Allied Assault turned the Second World war into a bit of a laugh, well if that true then doesn't Vice City turn street crime into a bit of a laugh also?
I'm a bit like the Daily Mail in that I disapprove of the content of some computer games. I'm not like the Daily Mail in that I don't want to impose my views on other people. I'm a libertarian: I think that people should be free to play whatever games they please, but I also think that everyone has a right to an opinion - and so here is mine.
This might annoy some people but here is a list of recent games that I have not enjoyed, or don't want to play at all:
Medal of Honour: Allied Assault
Platoon
Vietcong
Conflict Desert Storm
The common thread with these games is that they are all based on real conflicts, and the people who fought in them or lost loved ones are still alive, and still remember. In my personal opinion it just isn't right to base games around these events.
The thing that puts me off playing WWII games is remembering my grandad's experience of war. He was South African and so fought in the long African campaigns; when the Italians captured Tunisia he was made a prisoner of war. He later escaped and roamed the Italian countryside for months, before being recaptured by the Germans. He spent the rest of the war in Stalag Luft I, and almost died of pneumonia. The more adventurous parts of his war would make a pretty good pitch for a computer game nowadays. But there's one problem: it wasn't fun or exciting for him.
When Medal of Honour came out there were lots of glowing reviews, saying that at last a game had recreated the 'horrors of war'. That is a load of rubbish. War is horrible: it kills people, it scars people for life, mentally and physically; there are no quicksaves or cutscenes, and no enjoyment. War stinks, plain and simple. I once asked my grandad how many people he killed during the war: he said "probably none". I don't know if that was true or not, but I do know that I wish I'd never asked him that question. Killing people, real people, is hard; it stays with you forever. Medal of Honour turned his experiences into a bit of a laugh.
And then there are the more modern games, based on the wars in Vietnam and the Gulf. The Vietnam War killed 58,000 Americans and at least a million Vietnamese. It was a completely pointless war, murder on a massive scale, and now we get to play at soldiers. The thing I object to in these games is that your enemies are completely dehumanised: it's just "you're an Arab, bang-bang, now you're dead".
I sincerely doubt that the people playing these games have any understanding of the history of these conflicts, or have ever been in a war themselves. That's fine, but as entertainment it doesn't feel right to me. As I've said, I think people should be free to make up their own minds - but if I had kids I'd be happier letting them play Vice City than Vietcong.
Give me alien genocide any day. Happy shooting!
This might annoy some people but here is a list of recent games that I have not enjoyed, or don't want to play at all:
Medal of Honour: Allied Assault
Platoon
Vietcong
Conflict Desert Storm
The common thread with these games is that they are all based on real conflicts, and the people who fought in them or lost loved ones are still alive, and still remember. In my personal opinion it just isn't right to base games around these events.
The thing that puts me off playing WWII games is remembering my grandad's experience of war. He was South African and so fought in the long African campaigns; when the Italians captured Tunisia he was made a prisoner of war. He later escaped and roamed the Italian countryside for months, before being recaptured by the Germans. He spent the rest of the war in Stalag Luft I, and almost died of pneumonia. The more adventurous parts of his war would make a pretty good pitch for a computer game nowadays. But there's one problem: it wasn't fun or exciting for him.
When Medal of Honour came out there were lots of glowing reviews, saying that at last a game had recreated the 'horrors of war'. That is a load of rubbish. War is horrible: it kills people, it scars people for life, mentally and physically; there are no quicksaves or cutscenes, and no enjoyment. War stinks, plain and simple. I once asked my grandad how many people he killed during the war: he said "probably none". I don't know if that was true or not, but I do know that I wish I'd never asked him that question. Killing people, real people, is hard; it stays with you forever. Medal of Honour turned his experiences into a bit of a laugh.
And then there are the more modern games, based on the wars in Vietnam and the Gulf. The Vietnam War killed 58,000 Americans and at least a million Vietnamese. It was a completely pointless war, murder on a massive scale, and now we get to play at soldiers. The thing I object to in these games is that your enemies are completely dehumanised: it's just "you're an Arab, bang-bang, now you're dead".
I sincerely doubt that the people playing these games have any understanding of the history of these conflicts, or have ever been in a war themselves. That's fine, but as entertainment it doesn't feel right to me. As I've said, I think people should be free to make up their own minds - but if I had kids I'd be happier letting them play Vice City than Vietcong.
Give me alien genocide any day. Happy shooting!