NationStates Jolt Archive

I find the Battlefield series a bit distasteful. Vietnam was particulary insulting I thought. It showed actual war footage and was quite biased to the US forces (the US had far better weapons for one) and just seemed like a bad idea. I doubt those poor bastards who were drafted would find it particulary accurate either. 1942 wasn't exactly great either. There is also a game called Viet Cong, which is rather misleading by the title. You don't actually get to play as Viet Cong, just shoot them. I've always found a strange trend in games depicting history, espicially wars, as they seem to be rather, well, imaginative. Anyone else noticed that?

They're designed to take as little time to make but to look good from the outside so that they sell heaps. People keep lapping up shit games.

You do highlight a major problem with game development which causes untold grief to those in the industry, especially those who base their games on historical events: people won't play unless the game is fun. War is not fun. So, the game can never be totally historically, politically etc. accurate quite simply because gameplay must be taken into account. People won't play a game in which you'd have the same odds of dying as in real life warzones. It's for the same reason that in games you can take some two rounds from a semi-automatic weapon before dying.

I find the Battlefield series a bit distasteful. Vietnam was particulary insulting I thought. It showed actual war footage and was quite biased to the US forces (the US had far better weapons for one) and just seemed like a bad idea. I doubt those poor bastards who were drafted would find it particulary accurate either. 1942 wasn't exactly great either. There is also a game called Viet Cong, which is rather misleading by the title. You don't actually get to play as Viet Cong, just shoot them. I've always found a strange trend in games depicting history, espicially wars, as they seem to be rather, well, imaginative. Anyone else noticed that?It's a game... to require the type of realism you want is absurd. it's like requiring all non documentary movies to be realistic.

you want it real? then program it so that the moment you die, the disk crashes and the program erases.. no try overs, no multiple lives... game over.

Ah, but it is possible to make a wargame that deals with alternate history while at the same time keeping feasible and fun:

http://www.firingsquad.com/games/hearts_of_iron_2_review/

It's a game... to require the type of realism you want is absurd. it's like requiring all non documentary movies to be realistic.

you want it real? then program it so that the moment you die, the disk crashes and the program erases.. no try overs, no multiple lives... game over.

No, I wasn't talking about that type of realism, I'd just like to see a more accurate depiction, like how the shit hit the fan in South Vietnam, or how the Viet Cong had been fighting for independance from France, as oppossed to blowing the hell of Viet Cong mindlessly.

Movies annoy me too in the same way. Ever seen Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story? There was a lot of holes and imaginative story used in that.

Hmm im tired of Strategic games which are more TActical i want real Divisions dammit not 500 or so men at a time give me Corp command! :mp5:

They're designed to take as little time to make but to look good from the outside so that they sell heaps. People keep lapping up shit games.

Have you even played Battlefield 1942? Its a very good game and is intended mainly for massive multiplayer battles.

As for the the thread, no I don't find them distasteful. Nor do I find Castle Wolfenstein or Return to Castle Wolfenstein distasteful. They're games. Realism sucks. Fun is good.

Well.. the market for these games is primarily found on only one side of the conflict. Portraying Americans as invaders, or suggesting the enemy was just as human as the ones doing the shooting, would upset a large part of that market. This would cost the company money. To let their customers empatize more they have to portray the targetgroup as the superior one - both morally and as far as strength is concerned.

Similar things are done in the movie-industry. Take the stealing of the enigma machine, which was suddenly done by Americans in a certain submarine WW II movie.

I for one would welcome a traditional World War II FPS from an Axis point of view.
But then again, I am biased.

No, I wasn't talking about that type of realism, I'd just like to see a more accurate depiction, like how the shit hit the fan in South Vietnam, or how the Viet Cong had been fighting for independance from France, as oppossed to blowing the hell of Viet Cong mindlessly.

Movies annoy me too in the same way. Ever seen Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story? There was a lot of holes and imaginative story used in that.and there are holes in 'Ray' and other "biographies" Movies and Games are for entertainment... make it too real and you run into problems.

ever heard of the series Undercover? they took stories off of the head lines and made episodes baised off of them. People couldn't watch it because it was too realistic. If you don't like the game, don't play it. I hate GTA... and I never played 2, 3 or any of it's other titles.

I guess I'm just one of those people who enjoys accurate depictions. Although I do enjoy playing Codename Eagle :D

I find the Battlefield series a bit distasteful. Vietnam was particulary insulting I thought. It showed actual war footage and was quite biased to the US forces (the US had far better weapons for one) and just seemed like a bad idea. I doubt those poor bastards who were drafted would find it particulary accurate either. 1942 wasn't exactly great either. There is also a game called Viet Cong, which is rather misleading by the title. You don't actually get to play as Viet Cong, just shoot them. I've always found a strange trend in games depicting history, espicially wars, as they seem to be rather, well, imaginative. Anyone else noticed that?

Most PC games are made in the USA, so that's to be expected. I'm waiting for a game made in the Middle East called "Jihad, the game"

Most PC games are made in the USA, so that's to be expected. I'm waiting for a game made in the Middle East called "Jihad, the game"

That would be quite cool.

I for one would welcome a traditional World War II FPS from an Axis point of view.
But then again, I am biased.

Oh yeah, you actually get to gun down the prisoners yourself.

That would be quite cool.
Oh yeah, it would have excellent game elements: Stealth, driving challenges, gun fights. It would be like Metal Gear

Oh yeah, it would have excellent game elements: Stealth, driving challenges, gun fights. It would be like Metal Gearohh and you have to build the bomb just right... get the time difference wrong and the bomb explodes before you can get the car to the target...

A game based on actual Viet Cong tactics would be quite interesting; tunnels, raids, etc. Would make for a very cool game. The whole "I think I just shot my dad." thing would provide endless hours of discussion as well.

I am reminded of a Penny Arcade comic, where they talked about a Japanese-made WW2 game set in the pacific theater had been very popular in Japan. That's a little...weird, no? The youth of today's japan killing their fathers and grandfathers in a grisly pantomime of history's greatest tragedy?

I find the Battlefield series a bit distasteful. Vietnam was particulary insulting I thought. It showed actual war footage and was quite biased to the US forces (the US had far better weapons for one) and just seemed like a bad idea. I doubt those poor bastards who were drafted would find it particulary accurate either. 1942 wasn't exactly great either. There is also a game called Viet Cong, which is rather misleading by the title. You don't actually get to play as Viet Cong, just shoot them. I've always found a strange trend in games depicting history, espicially wars, as they seem to be rather, well, imaginative. Anyone else noticed that?

The US did have better weapons. Are you saying that the US couldn't call for artillery or air strikes? As someone who has extensively used both the AK series of weapons and the M-16, I know which one is far more accurate - it's the M-16.

The people who were sent to Vietnam were not "only" draftees.

In the first place, if you want to find a mostly draftee army, look at World War II. Sixty-six percent of armed forces members were drafted in the Second World War, compared with 25 percent in Vietnam.

As for ethnic background, 88.4 percent of those who served in Vietnam were Caucasian. A little more than 10 percent were black About 1 percent belonged to other races. Of those who gave their lives, 86.3 percent were Caucasians (including Hispanics), 12.5 percent were blacks and 1.2 percent were other races. Seventy percent of the enlisted men killed were of northwest European descent. Of those killed as a result of hostile action, 86.8 percent were Caucasian; 12.1 percent were black; and 1.1 percent were of other races.

Of those who died in Vietnam, 64.4 percent were Protestants, 28.9 percent were Catholics and 6.7 percent were other religions (or no religion).

Were Vietnam vets drawn disproportionately from the ne'er do well set? Not at all. Seventy-six percent were from lower-middle and working-class backgrounds. Three-quarters had family incomes above the poverty level, and 50 percent were from middle-class families. Nearly a quarter of those who served had fathers in professional, managerial or technical occupations.

Ninety-seven percent of Vietnam-era vets were honorably discharged. Ninety-one percent of Vietnam War veterans (including those who saw heavy combat) are proud to have served their country, and 66 percent say they would serve again if called upon.

We have created a notion that American soldiers committed greater numbers of atrocities in Vietnam than in other wars. But My Lai appears to have been an aberration, not a commonplace occurrence. On the other hand, the wounds suffered in combat by Americans were worse than those experienced in earlier conflicts. Amputation or crippling wounds to the lower extremities were 300 percent higher in Vietnam than in World War II and 70 percent higher than in Korea.

About 10,000 Americans fled to Canada to avoid service in Vietnam. What is less well known is that 30,000 Canadians joined U.S. forces to serve in Vietnam.

down systems right, games are just another area of the media in which certain values are promoted. that is why i like games where you kill aliens, then theres noone to offend.

The US did have better weapons. Are you saying that the US couldn't call for artillery or air strikes? As someone who has extensively used both the AK series of weapons and the M-16, I know which one is far more accurate - it's the M-16.

The people who were sent to Vietnam were not "only" draftees.

In the first place, if you want to find a mostly draftee army, look at World War II. Sixty-six percent of armed forces members were drafted in the Second World War, compared with 25 percent in Vietnam.

As for ethnic background, 88.4 percent of those who served in Vietnam were Caucasian. A little more than 10 percent were black About 1 percent belonged to other races. Of those who gave their lives, 86.3 percent were Caucasians (including Hispanics), 12.5 percent were blacks and 1.2 percent were other races. Seventy percent of the enlisted men killed were of northwest European descent. Of those killed as a result of hostile action, 86.8 percent were Caucasian; 12.1 percent were black; and 1.1 percent were of other races.

Of those who died in Vietnam, 64.4 percent were Protestants, 28.9 percent were Catholics and 6.7 percent were other religions (or no religion).

Were Vietnam vets drawn disproportionately from the ne'er do well set? Not at all. Seventy-six percent were from lower-middle and working-class backgrounds. Three-quarters had family incomes above the poverty level, and 50 percent were from middle-class families. Nearly a quarter of those who served had fathers in professional, managerial or technical occupations.

Ninety-seven percent of Vietnam-era vets were honorably discharged. Ninety-one percent of Vietnam War veterans (including those who saw heavy combat) are proud to have served their country, and 66 percent say they would serve again if called upon.

We have created a notion that American soldiers committed greater numbers of atrocities in Vietnam than in other wars. But My Lai appears to have been an aberration, not a commonplace occurrence. On the other hand, the wounds suffered in combat by Americans were worse than those experienced in earlier conflicts. Amputation or crippling wounds to the lower extremities were 300 percent higher in Vietnam than in World War II and 70 percent higher than in Korea.

About 10,000 Americans fled to Canada to avoid service in Vietnam. What is less well known is that 30,000 Canadians joined U.S. forces to serve in Vietnam.

look, i dont think he was saying anything about the war, he was saying that games are biased.

look, i dont think he was saying anything about the war, he was saying that games are biased.

A game about being a pilot in the current US Air Force would be rather boring.

The game: B-2 Stealth Bomber. Your mission, fly in at night (when the enemy can't see you visually), with a plane that no one can see on radar, and bomb the target with bombs that don't miss unless you programmed their impact point incorrectly.

That would be truthful and accurate, and very boring to play.

No, I wasn't talking about that type of realism, I'd just like to see a more accurate depiction, like how the shit hit the fan in South Vietnam, or how the Viet Cong had been fighting for independance from France, as oppossed to blowing the hell of Viet Cong mindlessly.

Movies annoy me too in the same way. Ever seen Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story? There was a lot of holes and imaginative story used in that.

can you deploy Napalm and burn thousands of commie Cong at once?

actually, if a Vietnam game were realistic, you'd be able to start from the beginning and blow that huge levy... so the country would become flooded.

The Cong would wave the white flag and the war would be over with nary a US casualty. Jeese, we could have won that conflict fairly easily...