BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


War games

 
 
rotational
12:44 / 27.10.05
News is breaking that Iranians are getting understandably annoyed at a game called Assault on Iran that portrays a very near future in which you play as a special ops soldier trying to find evidence of nuclear weapon-making equipment. When you find it (naturally, it's there) you blow the installation... Kuma War Games seems to specialise in all this sort of thing - from a very singular viewpoint.

Older examples include the horrendous America's 10 Most Wanted : War on Terror, in which you find and bring to justice (ie fight hand to hand) the CIA's top ten list of fugitives. And then in more popular games you have representations of 'real world' scenarios in the Conflict games, the Tom Clancy games including Splinter Cell and Ghost Recon, plus Full Spectrum Warrior, which was developed from a US Army training aid and America's Army, which was developed as a recruitment tool for the US Army.

I'm extremely uncomfortable with these politically questionable games. They demonstrate videogames' awkward relationship with reality - they're often obsessed with trying to be realistic but end up incredibly limited in representing the chaos of the real world. It's not just because of technical limitations that these games simplify the real world: they have to to make a game that's playable - and fun.

Should I be concerned about this? Are populist videogames an appropriate format to explore issues like tensions in the Middle East and geopolitical relations in former USSR states? And why are they so politically simplistic?
 
 
Axolotl
14:01 / 27.10.05
Isn't this a bit like excoriating Rambo movies for not dealing with the realities of Vietnam veterans' difficulties?
I find the ultra-realistic ones slightly distasteful, but to expect what is the equivalent of the big dumb action movie to deal sensitively with the middle eastern situation is perhaps a little unrealistic.
As for the reasons why they're so simplistic politically, I'm guessing it a)sells better & b)makes the game better. Can you imagine the fuss if a game was produced where you got to be an insurgent attacking US convoys? There's a double standard here, but no more than elsewhere in society, see the recent fuss over the 200 American dead, what's the Iraqi civilian death toll?.
Also while there is possibly a game to made about high level peace concords (press x to concede demands for territory. o to hold out for arms's concessions) these are FPS, & therefore shooting kind of goes with the territory.
I personally am slightly uneasy about them, probably wouldn't play them myself, but I don't think videogames are worse than Hollywood, or even the evening news for presenting a simplistic view.
It's an interesting topic though, & there's definitely room for discussing the issues. On a related note, do games like Call of Duty, or Medal of Honour devalue the horror of WWII? I'm not sure, though there was a nice Penny Arcade cartoon recently that touched on this.
 
 
rising and revolving
14:23 / 27.10.05
I personally am slightly uneasy about them, probably wouldn't play them myself, but I don't think videogames are worse than Hollywood, or even the evening news for presenting a simplistic view.

I somewhat agree, although I would say it's a case by case, game by game basis. I left one company because I didn't want to work on a WWII game - and I wouldn't work on Splinter Cell again, even though it's set "Just in the Future" - it's a little too close for my liking.

Which means I've kind of got a restricted range of employment opportunities, but that's okay.

It's not just because of technical limitations that these games simplify the real world: they have to to make a game that's playable - and fun.

True, but look at FSW - the Army version isn't actually very different from the home version.
 
 
All Acting Regiment
16:47 / 27.10.05
Are populist videogames an appropriate format to explore issues like tensions in the Middle East and geopolitical relations in former USSR states?

Probably not, and neither are big budget action films. I'm sure that if someone wanted to, they could create a game that showed war for the horror it really is: we have films that do just that, books that do just that. The problem is that the main motivation behind the sort of games we're talking about is profit, and games that force you to think twice (or at all) before killing someone just don't sell very much.

I think the issue here is how much of a captive audience these things get, and how seriously the pro-establishment, pro-millitary themes in these entertainment products affect the consumer.

I don't know the answer to these questions, but I can say from experience that there are young guys I know who know pretty much nothing about "The World" and "War" apart from what they see in videogames. On the other hand, I think we should avoid the reactionary "Games Are Corrupting Our Kids" attitude.

I think if they do have a chance of "brainwashing" people it's by linking real-world conflicts to a set of sensations (gaming) that people associate with play, escapism and fantasy: what's the difference between WW2 and Halo? Not much, if your definition of WW2 is based on computer games.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
17:45 / 27.10.05
(Great thread idea, btw).

I think a lot's down to the treatment- there's a lot of difference between, say, Call Of Duty and RTC Wolfenstein (both games I loved dearly). Yeah, it's bollocks when you read these letters in games mags from people who now think they "know what it was like to serve in World War II" after playing CoD (except, y'know, they were sat on a sofa drinking beer and, well, it just wasn't as risky) but there is an attempt not to cheapen too many memories.

Although at the same time a game that ACCURATELY portrayed war wouldn't be that much fun, really, for me at any rate.

Anyone remember Cannon Fodder? Cutesy and cartoony it may have been, but it did a wonderful job in reminding you that yes, while you're playing a video game, blowing shit up and watching people die can be fun- but that's not actually the case. (Naming all your soldiers, and having their graves gradually fill up a hillside was a "nice" touch, for example. Having to put the little cutesy cartoony guys out of their misery was another).
 
 
Spatula Clarke
17:47 / 27.10.05
Phox: Isn't this a bit like excoriating Rambo movies for not dealing with the realities of Vietnam veterans' difficulties?

Only if the movie industry never released anything other than Rambo movies. As it is, there's a wealth of films that deal with war with some measure of intelligence - that's not anything that's ever been seen in a commercial videogame, to the best of my knowledge.

As for the reasons why they're so simplistic politically, I'm guessing it a)sells better & b)makes the game better. Can you imagine the fuss if a game was produced where you got to be an insurgent attacking US convoys?

I don't think that's necessarily the answer. Providing a blatantly one-sided account isn't the only reason why I dislike these games. In fact, I'd say it's the smallest of the problems here. The wider issue that war is only ever gung-ho, something to revel in.

Example: Ghost Recon 2, where you have a supposedly crack squad of silent maneuvers experts yelling "COME GET SOME" every time they fire a fucking bullet.

There's never any attempt to examine any other aspects. Horror. Death. Life as currency. Aftermath. Political and social ramifications. Hell, you don't need to put these things into the game part of the game, just cover them in the cutscenes. Because there will be cutscenes. There are always cutscenes. That'd be a huge step forwards from where we are now.

I'm kind of ashamed to admit that I betrayed my principles on this a couple of months ago. After previously having stated that I wanted nothing to do with games based around current, real world conflicts, I went out and bought GR2: Summit Strike, mainly because people were saying it was fun online. And, to be fair, it is fun online, but that's got a lot to do with the way that in the online mode, with people you know, all the things that make these games so objectionable disappear. The storyline's removed from the equation and it just becomes a virtual version of going paintballing. At least, that's how I currently justify it to myself.

r&r: look at FSW - the Army version isn't actually very different from the home version.

Does it include an ad for the US Army? That's probably the most ridiculous thing about GR2:SS - the unlockables are basically all promotional material for them. Either that or gun porn. It just makes it even more distasteful.

Got to say I really respect your stance on it, r&r. Is it a concern that other developers or industry pros share, do you know?
 
 
Char Aina
19:09 / 27.10.05
on splinter cell;
i had a discussion with a friend about his unease at the pro-US government activities you take part in,some of them clearly poor representations of the reality of the political scenes they seek to portray.
i was defending the game.
i love stealth games.
i liked the first tenchu when it came out as well, and used to play the checkpoint mission regularly and often even after completeing the game.

i see the two as very similar.
while one is set in the past and the other the near future(practically the present), basically they are the same.
in one you play a ninja.
in the other you play a super-tech ninja.
in both you are working for your government and have little or no choice in what missions you accept.
i also feel that in both in both the portrayal of the political scene is not accurate.

i can understand that the closeness to our time makes splinter cell more potentially offensive, but i dont really find it too bothersome.
ninjas will always be working for a government, and they are, by their nature, violent and unethical dealers of death.
if you wanna be a ninja, you have to be a ninja, basically.
i dont pretend to like the politics, and the shamelessly jingoistic, clancyesque interpretations of reality do suck as education.
i find i can usually rise above/ignore it.
i can play the game as a game without feeling brainwahsed and i usually laugh at the ridiculousness of uncle sam's exploits as a member of third echelon.
(ohmigod! them foreigns are hating our freeness! kill someone! quick! quiet!)

i guess basically i extract from the experience what i like and ignore what i dont and cant laugh at.

i dont like FSW or its ilk at all, to be honest, so i am usually more harsh in my thoughts towards it and its message.
as they get more real, i find that these games often become less about playing a game and more about living vicariously.

i like to pretend to be amazing at martial arts and infiltration. playing thesegames lets me experience in some small way the mindset of someone who is. as games get better, i like the idea that many more experiences that i would not wish to have for real will become available for me.
i dont ever want to have to kill someone.
the prospect terrifies me.
i do want to know what goes through the mind of someone who does, though.
i would love to see a game in which one plays a terrorist, for example. i wonder what goes through your mind when you are attempting to steer clear of suspicious cops and jack bauer types while planning spectacular acts of destruction and fearmongering.

i am curious and have a voracious hunger for understanding the shit that piques.*
ethics totally come second, i'm afraid.




*FSW et al dont.
i have enough understanding of the experience of being US military personell for my liking already, and it isnt an experience i desire to embed myself in regularly.
 
 
Char Aina
19:17 / 27.10.05
Can you imagine the fuss if a game was produced where you got to be an insurgent attacking US convoys?

yes.
it would be like GTA times ten.
if we are discussing the validity of vicariously living as a US soldier and killing TehEnemiesOfTehFreeness,shouldnt webe talking about the validity of the experience of being a murderous gangster?
i have probably sniped more old ladies, homosexual construction workers, bums, gangsters, cops, and so on than i have foreign nationals, y'know?
is it different becasue we all know that being a gangster is bad?
because we dont, you know.
some folks think its fucking cool.
 
 
grime
20:31 / 27.10.05
of course you could always dress up in some tennis shoes and rpg trucks out in the venturas desert. it's fun.

i have seen an iraq mod for counterstrike, with the option of playing an insurgent. frankly, i think an asymetrical combat game would much more fun from the insurgent's pov, rather than the marine's.
 
 
Char Aina
20:49 / 27.10.05
of course you could always dress up in some tennis shoes and rpg trucks out in the venturas desert. it's fun.

its prolly kinda expensive, huh.
that and i live in glasgow,which is a hecuva train ride from any deserts.
i do reckon you might be right though, judging by how much fun it was to loose off some rounds on an automatic.
i felt it was a kinda guilty pleasure, and i dont know if the gun-buzz in my gut is a payoff worthy of the proliferation of such weaponry.
same would go for RPG launchers and the like, i reckon.
YMMV, but i like my guns virtual.
no one can rob me and leave me as a corpse witness with a dualshock.
well, okay. maybe some folks.
substantially fewer than could do the same with an armalyte or a stinger launcher, i'd say.
 
 
rising and revolving
21:14 / 27.10.05
Does it include an ad for the US Army? That's probably the most ridiculous thing about GR2:SS - the unlockables are basically all promotional material for them. Either that or gun porn. It just makes it even more distasteful.

Not sure - from what I recall (and it's a bit fuzzy) the Army version of FSW wasn't actually supposed to get shipped to the world. But it was on the CD for the retail X-Box version and there was a way (not a hard way, either) of unlocking the content. I think the Army was unhappy about that - as it was supposed to be their toy, not the worlds. So I don't think it was fully commercialised the way Americas Army was, because it's release was effectively accidental.

Got to say I really respect your stance on it, r&r. Is it a concern that other developers or industry pros share, do you know?

Some. Especially the older, family guys - something about having kids seems to stop you wanting to keep making murder sims. I wouldn't say it's so far as a defined stance though - most people take it on a game by game basis. And most people aren't going to leave a company because they don't like the project ... I'm a little more fast and loose than that, as a rule.

But yeah, it didn't really start out as a defined ethical position. I knew I wasn't willing to work on WWII stuff[1] - I have friends who lost relatives in that one, it's just too close to the bone. Any modern battle was pretty much out. I thought I was fine w/ sci-fi, but the whole Clancy thing really isn't that - it's very much rooted in today. It's just wet-dreams about guns that people think the military have, but haven't announced yet. That's not sci-fi in my book.

So, yeah. I'd probably not work on an ultraviolent Soldier of Fortune style game, regardless of setting. On the other hand, if that violence was being used in an ancient Roman game to show just how nasty swords are, maybe. If it was to show the true horror of war, perhaps.

Basically, I don't think you can make a hard and fast rule. There's nothing out there that can't be used well ... and it's not like my current project isn't largely driven by its IP. We're not breaking new ground on this one ... it's just there's certain topics I'm not going to touch unless they're going to be handled in a new / interesting / sensitive manner.

[1] This is not entirely true. If it was dealt with properly, I'd be there. Even something around the Band of Brothers / Saving Private Ryan level would be fine. I just didn't have any confidence the people involved could pull that off, nor that they wanted to.
 
 
grime
22:25 / 27.10.05
"that and i live in glasgow,which is a hecuva train ride from any deserts."

well, no train will take you to the desert in las venturas, as it only exists within gta: san andreas. one night, while playing the game, we decided to customize the character's outfit to resemble a typical iraqi insurgent as closely as possible. then we took a a quick trip out to the desert outside of their version of las vegas. remote controlled explosives, rpgs and the trusy AK made for some wacky terrorist fun.

there's an interesting note about the pacific rim version of medal of honour in this OTM interview.
 
 
Char Aina
22:51 / 27.10.05
a HA.
that make more sense.
makes me feel silly too.
this also makes sense.
 
 
w1rebaby
22:52 / 27.10.05
I find things like Kuma\War really very disturbing, and have done since it started. I'm disturbed a bit by the Tom Clancy stuff, but that's more fantasy; it may be inuring the player to the idea that Special Forces Might Means Right but it's not actively promoting real-world propaganda. The Kuma\War stuff is. It repackages real-world events in terms of a video game, with all that that implies - battles have to be winnable, no permanent death, bots don't have families etc. The Iraq invasion is chopped up and repackaged as a discrete series of military set pieces, like CNN does, but more immersive.
 
 
Axolotl
08:32 / 28.10.05
E Randius: Good point about the cut-scenes, you're right, there is room there to illustrate the horrors of war.
Stoatie: Cannon Fodder (bizarrely) did that very well. You felt affection for your guys and watching that cemetary fill up did remind you about the consequences of war.
The orginal Wing Commander was good at that as well. When you lost a wingman (who all had individual personalities) there was a cutscene of the funeral, with the coffin being launched into space while "Taps" played.
Could you make the argument that "Soldier of Fortune" style realism (by which I mean gore) is necessary to bring home the realities of shooting people? I'm not sure, but it would probably depend on the context of the game. Soldier of Fortune for example, was very politically suspect, and the gore in that was just used as a selling point.
 
 
lord nuneaton savage
10:19 / 28.10.05
It's a bit of a moot point, but I thought that the first level of Medal of Honour (y'know the Normandy landings level) was very good at getting the sheer CONFUSION of the situation over. OK, you're not actually in fear for your life, but it did give me a pretty nasty idea of how long I'd be likely to last in such a situation (ie not very bloody long). I just panicked, ran around and got killed really quickly. I had to sit down and have a cup of tea and a period of decompression before I started the game again.

On the other hand I could just be shit at computer games.

I don't think adding gore is the answer. If you take the example of soldier of fortune, which I do find highly suspect (I think it's tied in with the magazine of the same name, isn't it?) then I basically spent most of my time trying to shoot the "baddies" in the cock. Not exactly bringing home the realities of war, is it?
 
 
The Strobe
10:48 / 28.10.05
Here's an interesting response:

there's a new Full Spectrum Warrior about to come out soon, subtitled "Ten Hammers". The subtitle is a US bastardisation of "Tien Hamir", the location of a bridge to be captured.

This game hasn't got any official sanction from the US Army, and that's important, because:

it follows the capture of the bridge - one single mission, really - from several different viewpoints. The US troops, sure; some EU allies; and the insurgents themselves.

You play as all the sides, in the singleplayer game. Also, unlike before, when people could die and would just pop in the next game, this time, when soldiers die, they're gone for good. They've got a way larger voice cast, so you'll actually miss each soldier's personality, as well as their skills; they wanted to make it feel more human, make the losses count, and I guess (through the multiple perspectives) humanise the enemy.

This is what they chose to do when the Army no longer had control; I think it's quite an interesting shift in style (even if the mechanics are almost the same). There's a big preview in this month's Edge, if you're interested.
 
 
rising and revolving
13:43 / 28.10.05
I don't think adding gore is the answer. If you take the example of soldier of fortune, which I do find highly suspect (I think it's tied in with the magazine of the same name, isn't it?) then I basically spent most of my time trying to shoot the "baddies" in the cock. Not exactly bringing home the realities of war, is it?

Just to be clear, I wasn't suggesting that SoF is a good example of anything but the sort of gratuitous violence I'd not work on. However, I don't buy that violence can never be used with good effect - if it was, for example to bring home the realities of war, then it's the sort of thing I'd consider.

Think of the scene in Reservoir Dogs w/ Tim Roth bleeding out in the back of the car. One of the most effective moments of cinematic violence at the time. There's no reason a game couldn't make you feel like that.

I even wonder if you took a regular shooter and instead of making people die when shot, left them wounded and screaming, what the effect would be. Done properly, I can see this being quite disturbing. Instead of a room full of silent, fading, corpses you'd be left with wounded, bleeding, men screaming for help and/or to be put out of their misery.

Even as you step into the next room, you'd hear those you'd left behind.

Now, done poorly this could play into peoples SoF gore fantasies ... done well, tied to a narrative that helped to subvert the usual expectations of a shooter, I think it could be quite effective.
 
 
grime
13:58 / 28.10.05
hey toksik i hear ya. i've thought about getting there IRL many sad times.

re: kuma, i dunno. there's something definately tasteless about it. but there's something fascinating about trying to transcribe a real world battle into a video game, especially if that battle is only a week old. if done well (which would be very hard) it seems like a great way to communicate the experience. it's not really journalism, because events unfold differently. but to know what *it's really like* . . . it's like the opposite of a documentary.
 
 
Char Aina
14:07 / 28.10.05
in the same way that i can ignore or laugh at the politics of sam fisher, couldnt folks just enjoy the screams of the dying?
whether folks are psychopaths or just become hardened, i can imagine them becoming desensitized eventually.
the next step is often gallows humour and revelling in that which scares and sickens you.

i find i cant process sick and fucked up stuff for too long without my brain recontextualising the experience.

i dont imagine everyone deals with things this way, but i certainly do.

i recall reading american psycho and finding myself less sickened by the vile, unspeakable shit that he does as i experienced more of it.
on my second read, it had lost much of its impact and i found had moved closer to the film version in terms of my reading of it.
i found the situations funny.
in some ways these are a few of the worst descriptions of violence i have read, yet i was enjoying them.
there was still a part of me that was horrified, even by read three, but it was a pretty quiet part.
some might argue that that is to do with ellis' style. perhaps he does it that way on purpose, but i had a similar desensitisation occur when i read andrea dworkin's book on pornography, a book that no one can be confused about the motivation behind.
 
 
lord nuneaton savage
14:09 / 28.10.05
"I even wonder if you took a regular shooter and instead of making people die when shot, left them wounded and screaming, what the effect would be. Done properly, I can see this being quite disturbing. Instead of a room full of silent, fading, corpses you'd be left with wounded, bleeding, men screaming for help and/or to be put out of their misery."

I see your point, but I can't help but think that there are some people (and I'm not completely ruling myself out of this one) that would find that this actually ADDED to the cheap yucks factor.

What about the use of civilians? Loads of shooters have innocent NPCs that wonder in front of your gunsights from time to time. Could they be used to bring home the reality of combat? Although again, I should point out that I enjoy putting on cheat modes and going a bit Mai Lai occasionally.

I think the problem is the lack of genuine repurcussions. People laugh during horror films when the "good guys" get mashed in inventive ways. I don't see most computer games as being much different. The other issue is that characters in computer games don't look like real people. It's hard to feel much empathy for a chap who, to all intents and purposes, has a block for a head and occasionally collides and gets his arm stuck in walls.
 
 
Axolotl
14:37 / 28.10.05
R&R: That's it exactly, gore, if used well, could be vital in bringing the horrors of war to the player.
For example, think of most of the acclaimed films about Vietnam. Most contain explicit scenes of brutal violence and horror to bring home their message. Without realistic violence, which you could argue entails gore, you'd have the A-Team, not Platoon.
Just to make clear, I wasn't using SoF as an example of a good way of showing the horror of war, because it isn't. In fact it could almost be an example of what not to do. Simplistic political views - check, glorification of violence - check, unquestioning acceptance of the use of mercenaries in combat, check.
I'm alos not saying that ultraviolence is good, or necessary, I'm just wondering if it does have a place.
 
  
Add Your Reply