NationStates Jolt Archive

Games like Medal of Honour, Call of Duty, Vietcong etc. Do you think its disrespectful to be making money of these conflicts where many hundruds of people died. I have no problem with fictional conflicts and I don't rearly have much of problem with these games, though I do think fictional conflicts make better games (sci-fi in particular). I wondered what everyone else thought?

Is it disrespectful to make money off of movies, television shows, music, etc. about those wars?

prehaps, but then so are books movies and tv shows as even if they where helped to be made by people who were their, they wont really show 'how it was' but then whats the alternative white wash them from history.

I only think they're disrespectful if they're disrespectful to the soldiers. If they display every single WWII-era German soldier as nothing but a horrible hate filled Nazis that's bad, as would displaying every single Vietnam Era US soldier as an indiscriminate murderer, that's just as bad. As long as they make the effort to be accurate I think it's just fine. Then again, since I've never been in a war I can't comment on the opinions of those who've lived it.

Nah.

War Games have been around forever.

Just because you stop making games, will it stop war?

I don't believe that it is disrespectful as long as it is accurate. However, I'm really not into real world war games, so I stick to things like Star Wars and Halo.

Is it disrespectful to make money off of movies, television shows, music, etc. about those wars?
I'm conflicted on this, and this is certainly part of it. However, what's conveyed in a narrative work versus what is portrayed in a video game are very different.

But on the other hand, I do consider video games a form of narrative (not all the time, but the structure is there) and don't want to pigeon hole the gaming experience.

Certainly there have been video games about wars for a long time. No one is questioning the ethics of the Total War engine, for example.

My only real discomfort is that I am playing (I'll get to this in a second) at a war that people who really fought in are still alive. The disrespect is that I am not seeing thier stories or understanding the struggle, but rather recreationally enjoying the conflict that they fought and had friends die for real in.

But there is a tinge of hypocracy in feeling this, because I LOVE WWII and WWI fighter plane games. Never once playing these did I think about the people who managed to survive these would feel about me making recreation out of thier sacrafice. The only time that it tinged was when the Vietnam and Gulf War games came out.

Now, certainly there is a difference. The Gulf War game comes out when tensions are still high with Iraq (and as it turns out we did go back) and Vietnam is still a touchy issue (ask John Kerry). The latter was not a 'popular' war and there are people who are dealing with the real ramifications of fighting and risking their lives for, something that I'm doing for recreation.

But, back to Sdaeriji's comment, though-is it any less than disrespectful than, say, Rambo or The A-Team which turned Vietnam into a 'super-hero' factory? But, it's not okay to excuse one wrong thing with another.

I don't really have a conclusion. Society will determine, in the end, if something is 'too soon.' I don't think the bar is very high, or if it's just that the people who yell at video games have worn themselves hoarse and can't be heard anymore.

The only real way to tell is if the vets themselves are offended, and if they wheren't before I don't know that they are now. If they aren't then and I am then I really am just being too sensitive. And I really do like airplane fighter games...

I don't know, but this just gave me an idea: games based off real homicides! You know, you get to play as either the killer or the victim..

Games like Medal of Honour, Call of Duty, Vietcong etc. Do you think its disrespectful to be making money of these conflicts where many hundruds of people died. I have no problem with fictional conflicts and I don't rearly have much of problem with these games, though I do think fictional conflicts make better games (sci-fi in particular). I wondered what everyone else thought?
Not at all. It's the American way to make money from virtually anything for which people will pay. My only concern about "combat simulation" games is that some few players ( usually male ), may get the totally erroneous impression that combat is relatively antiseptic and that death is "not really" final.

Other than that, I have no problems whatsoever with combat simulation games.

In the all the WWII games I have played, both sides were portrayed eqaully. Meaning that Germans were not projected as hate filled Nazis, just enemy soldiers that you are ordered to shoot and kill. No WWII games that I know of let you play as the Germans, and I think this is sensible because letting you kill virtual Allied soldiers would probably piss a lot of people off, as WWII was one of the only 'good' wars in history (Evil Nazis, liberation of oppressed countries etc).

As for the games themselves being disrespectful, I don't think they are, this may seem blunt, but it's just entertainment. I do think that studios that develop WWII games are very careful not to offend anyone.

I don't know, but this just gave me an idea: games based off real homicides! You know, you get to play as either the killer or the victim..
You mean like the JFK game where you get to be LHO? :sniper:

The one that got the PM & a whole bunch of Americans in a tizzy?

The one I couldn't download? :(

Hm?

Just about every flight sim and strategy game lets you play on both sides. I even can still recall when a friend of mine successfully conquered Washington in some Panzer General (1 or 2).

In shooters, that's different, right. Aside from Nazi propaganda bullsh1t, no game let's you play on the German side in WWII games.

They bore the hell out of me, anyway, WWII-shooters, I mean.

You mean like the JFK game where you get to be LHO? :sniper:

The one that got the PM & a whole bunch of Americans in a tizzy?

The one I couldn't download? :(

I guess, I was thinking of just highly publicized murders, not assassinations. Like you can be O.J and have to hide the dirty glove, that kind of thing. Or you could be the wife and try not to die....

I'd be quite interested to see more first world war games, there just dont seem to be very many...

I don't know, but this just gave me an idea: games based off real homicides! You know, you get to play as either the killer or the victim..

Already been done. There's one where you get to play as Lee Harvey Oswald and kill President Kennedy. Except you can't play as Kennedy.

Link (http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/comments.php?id=4669_0_8_0_C)
Another link (http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/comments.php?id=4669_0_8_0_C)

EDIT: Curses. Beaten to it.

Why? Wars are all about money and games...

I'd be quite interested to see more first world war games, there just dont seem to be very many...

There are one or two stratgy games, but given the shear slaughter of WW1 the only purpose the game would serve is to make people remember the horrors better by getting killed straight as you go over the parapet almost every time.

Why? Wars are all about money and games...
Yeah, right. :rolleyes:

Hm?

Just about every flight sim and strategy game lets you play on both sides. I even can still recall when a friend of mine successfully conquered Washington in some Panzer General (1 or 2).

In shooters, that's different, right. Aside from Nazi propaganda bullsh1t, no game let's you play on the German side in WWII games.

They bore the hell out of me, anyway, WWII-shooters, I mean.
Thats a good point as well. In table top games me and my friends have a standing policy of playing the 'bad guys'. Not out of empathy, it's just that more often than not they take more finese to play so when you win the gloating is more fun. In flight sim games it's kinda the same. Enemy forces often rely on overwhelming you, so to play an individual enemy fighter it's more of a challenge.

In shooters, that's different, right. Aside from Nazi propaganda bullsh1t, no game let's you play on the German side in WWII games.
Battlefield 1942 lets you play as both the Germans and the Japanese, as well as the Americans, British and Russians.

I think many war veterians would be pleased that their contributions to the world are being remembered by the youth. perhaps you can't grasp the reality of war in a video game but you can capture the cause for witch they were fighting

I think many war veterians would be pleased that their contributions to the world are being remembered by the youth. perhaps you can't grasp the reality of war in a video game but you can capture the cause for witch they were fighting

Yeah, when I saw this thread I thought that it might actually encourage kids to take some interest in patriotism and history.

Ah, yes, of course, I forgot BF1942. My bad, sorry. :)

Yeah, when I saw this thread I thought that it might actually encourage kids to take some interest in patriotism and history.
I'm not super crazy about the notion of fostering patriotism by having kids shoot people from other nations...

I'm not super crazy about the notion of fostering patriotism by having kids shoot people from other nations...

... Oh yeah. Didn't see it from that view. Good point :D

I'm not super crazy about the notion of fostering patriotism by having kids shoot people from other nations...
Perhaps surprisingly enough, neither am I. :)

If it's presented in a historical context, it can be used for educational purposes, like mentioned to foster an interest in History.

I'm ex-navy and have no problem with these games that are accurate, and use real data for whatever system it is that they use.

This mainly apply to the strategy/turn-based games. FPS games are another topic entirely, that I mainly see as computer variants of arcade games. I'm not saying that they're bad things, just that they have to be looked at from a different angle, as you can dress up any shoot 'em up in any historical era you want to.

I was an avid gamer when I was younger (ASL, Third Reich, Panzer Leader, Fleet series games etc) and still am on the PC (Civ series, Orion, etc). However if it took an end for war altogether to put an end to war games I'd be all for that... It would be worth the trade off.

Thats a good point as well. In table top games me and my friends have a standing policy of playing the 'bad guys'. Not out of empathy, it's just that more often than not they take more finese to play so when you win the gloating is more fun. In flight sim games it's kinda the same. Enemy forces often rely on overwhelming you, so to play an individual enemy fighter it's more of a challenge.

I have the same policy, it seems. I always play the Confederacy in Civil War games and the Germans, Italians or Japanese (depending on the theater and choices, I go with Germany whenever possible because I prefer their order of battle, though) in WW2 games. And, yeah, the reason is pretty much for gloating purposes (fear my 1337 military 5k1llz, I just defeated j00 as the side that lost teh war!!!!1).

Back to the point of the topic, though, I can't possibly see how anyone could have a problem with games based on real wars so long as the game is well researched and unbiased. And yes, I'm well aware that a lot of games get their history wrong in places or abstract history in others for the game experience. I'm just talking about glaring errors or those having to do with, say, political/moral issues (portraying all the Germans as bloodthirsty Nazis would be one). And as long as the game meets those above requirements, I wouldn't think veterans of those wars would have any problems with them either, except for the occasional quibble over historical inaccuracy, although, since I'm not exactly a vet, anybody who is can feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

As for the playing-the-Germans-in-WW2 bit, there's also Silent Storm, which, while not an FPS, is a tactical squad-based RPG and allows you to play as the Axis. The developers might have had a different perspective, though, seeing as how 1) they're Russian and 2) the game has a distinct black-ops and sci-fi bent.

LOL at the idea for the game where you play as O.J. :D

Edit:
If it's presented in a historical context, it can be used for educational purposes, like mentioned to foster an interest in History.

I'm 17 years old and an avid military history buff, and one of the biggest reasons is wargames (the other big reason would be my father, who was a huge military history buff himself). I also, or at least would like to think, know a substantial amount about the topic, and again, a lot of that knowledge comes from war games on the eras I consider myself well-versed in. Just thought I would throw that out in response to the "educational purposes."

I don't like such war games because they communicate an objective of dehumanization and extermination of real-life people or groups of people. War happens, but there is no reason to exhalt in it after the fact. It makes me uncomfortable, and sometimes I feel downright sick when I see shit like that being advertised.

I don't like such war games because they communicate an objective of dehumanization and extermination of real-life people or groups of people. War happens, but there is no reason to exhalt in it after the fact. It makes me uncomfortable, and sometimes I feel downright sick when I see shit like that being advertised.
Would you recommend they be banned?

I'm sorry, but I think people who let themselves be manipulated by any media, be it game, book or movie, without thinking for themselves, are the problem, and not the medium.

You know, there is a difference between game and reality, and albeit I killed, maimed or brutally beat up lots of "humans" in a game, I would never do it in reality.

All a matter of upbringing.

I have the same policy, it seems. I always play the Confederacy in Civil War games and the Germans, Italians or Japanese (depending on the theater and choices, I go with Germany whenever possible because I prefer their order of battle, though) in WW2 games. And, yeah, the reason is pretty much for gloating purposes (fear my 1337 military 5k1llz, I just defeated j00 as the side that lost teh war!!!!1).

Back to the point of the topic, though, I can't possibly see how anyone could have a problem with games based on real wars so long as the game is well researched and unbiased. And yes, I'm well aware that a lot of games get their history wrong in places or abstract history in others for the game experience. I'm just talking about glaring errors or those having to do with, say, political/moral issues (portraying all the Germans as bloodthirsty Nazis would be one). And as long as the game meets those above requirements, I wouldn't think veterans of those wars would have any problems with them either, except for the occasional quibble over historical inaccuracy, although, since I'm not exactly a vet, anybody who is can feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

I had a chance to play a game called Mustangs & Messerschmidts(sp) which is a 'table top' sort of (It's actually played with 1/32 models of planes on six foot tall stalks with little wheeled bases. It's quite a thing to witness...) with some veterans. The game brags that actual WWII pilots are just better at the game, and the people who play it are sticklers (there was a 15 minute discussion over whether or not I could us the Hellcat model that was left because they where out of Corsairs. It was finally determined that the time the game was being played some Hellcats where being integrated. When I suggested that I just use the Hellcat model and say it's a Corsair I thought I was going to get run out on a rail...). They where an interesting bunch, but really demanded a reverence for what they went through. Which is fine.

It was one of the few times I played the 'good guys.' It was a blast because the Zeros would zip in on the Corsairs then dive or climb out so they couldn't follow so I hung off the tail of my wingman and just chased down everyone who came after him, they wouldn't see it coming. Hey, as long as I don't have to be the bait...

Would you recommend they be banned?
I know this is hard for some people to recognize, but there is a difference between not approving of something and calling for it to be banned...

I know this is hard for some people to recognize, but there is a difference between not approving of something and calling for it to be banned...
There's no need to be insulting, it was just a question. :(

Thats strange, Sudden Strike allowed you to play as the Germans, Italians, French, British, USA etc...and strangly when I played as the Germans it made the game more enjoyable, can't say why though... :confused:

Also Close Combat, Red Orchestra (UT2K4 mod), DOD all let you either play as or command German soldiers.

And no, I don't think war games are disrespectful, after all I think I learnt more about the D-Day from Medal Of Honor:Allied Assault than from most TV documentries, because I felt like I was there (ok I wasn't, but it was as close as I could and wanted to get to it).

Thats strange, Sudden Strike allowed you to play as the Germans, Italians, French, British, USA etc...and strangly when I played as the Germans it made the game more enjoyable, can't say why though... :confused:

Also Close Combat, Red Orchestra (UT2K4 mod), DOD all let you either play as or command German soldiers.

And no, I don't think war games are disrespectful, after all I think I learnt more about the D-Day from Medal Of Honor:Allied Assault than from most TV documentries, because I felt like I was there (ok I wasn't, but it was as close as I could and wanted to get to it).
You may have learned more than you know. :)

And no, I don't think war games are disrespectful, after all I think I learnt more about the D-Day from Medal Of Honor:Allied Assault than from most TV documentries, because I felt like I was there (ok I wasn't, but it was as close as I could and wanted to get to it).

I know what you mean, i remember that beach landing scene and actually being scared of being hit. I had the volume up really loud, and it can almost fool you into thinking you're there.

What I find so fascinating is the reality of them ... I mean ... I've been in combat and I can assure that this is how it works in real life:

Soldier hunkers down behind berm, uses mirror to scope out the field on the other side. Two single-story buildings on the left and a burned out vehicle on the right side of a gravel road. Having heard radio reports of enemy action in the area, the soldier cautiously crawls over the berm. He sees some movement from behind the vehicle and readies his M-16 when *blam* half his head explodes due to a sniper shot from one of the buildings.

*click* wirrrrr ... zzzzp

Soldier hunkers down behind berm, uses mirror to scope out the field on the other side. Two single-story buildings on the left and a burned out vehicle on the right side of a gravel road. Having heard radio reports of enemy action in the area, the soldier cautiously crawls around the south side of the berm to get a better view of the vehicle. As he nears a divot in the berm *BAM* a landmine goes off taking his left arm and much of his midsection with it.

*click* wirrrrr ... zzzzp

Soldier hunkers down behind berm, uses mirror to scope out the field on the other side. Two single-story buildings on the left and a burned out vehicle on the right side of a gravel road. Having heard radio reports of enemy action in the area, the soldier cautiously crawls around the north side of the berm and spots a sniper on the roof of one of the buildings. Taking careful aim, the soldier takes out the sniper with a crack from his rifle that alerts his comrades to come sweeping in and secure the area from all enemies. Good work, soldier!

Ahhhhh reality at its finest. :D