Question of the Day, August 20, 2010

[Extraintrovert]

The only reaction I could conceivably have to this news is "big fucking deal". Games use current and past events for the same reason Law and Order keeps taking its plots from news stories: it means the writers have to do less work on creating a setting. Medal of Honour writers simply don't have to create backstory, emotional investment or all those fiddly other things that are usually required because they already exist, and if there are people stupid enough on any side of the argument to think this is anything more substantial then they are welcome to their delusion.

 

[Autofaux]

Anyone who says "It's just a game" is validating the often portrayed opinion that videogames are just things that children and socially stunted adults dick around with in their spare time.

Why does it matter? It's only moving pictures on a screen!
Why does it matter? It's only words on a page!
Why does it matter? It's only a game!

If it's tastefully done, then that's fine. If movies, books and television can do it, why the hell can't videogames do it?

Absolutely. Videogames are in a great position to make responsible commentary about real social issues and historical events, but as a community we need to stand firm when faced with detractors, and instead of calling them crazy conservatives or stupids, we could instead steadily introduce them to our medium with content that depicts a more mature, responsible arena of storytelling.

Unfortunately, the vocal minority makes all of us look bad, and sadly when our pasttime is leveled as being pointless or violent or sexually obscene that particular aggravating minority makes things worse by actively threatening or verbally abusing said detractors (see: Michael Atkinson, and death threats to his home from crazies, also: the Jack Thompson years).

I am confident that things are skewing favourably in our direction, and as things go on, will continue to do so.

 

[Blue Musician]

In the case of MoH, it seems that the Taliban side seems like responsible commentary, but other games don't...

 

[The Great JT]

The worst thing about the war is the political commentators. Especially the ones who think it's been a smashing success.

 

[Zhukov]

I do not like them.

I don't like seeing the complexities of a real and current conflict being simplified down into the usual "goodies vs baddies" theme because that's all the target audience can handle. And I'm not too happy about the idea of distinctly unpleasant and ongoing events being used for purposes of entertainment. Especially when that entertainment is of a fairly juvenile nature.

(Incidentally, fictional books and movies based on current events get on my nerves for the same reasons.)

However, I have absolutely no problem with a game letting me play as a Taliban operative.

...

Also, to all those people saying "it's just a game", you can say video games have artistic merit or you can say that they are "just games". You can't say both. That's what is known as trying to have your cake and eat it too.

 

[Fensfield]

Voted responsible commentary, because it can be.

But that said, why the extreme answers? Did the guy writing the question at the gaming magazine fail to realise all games aren't exactly the same?

 

[Seventh Actuality]

I find all games based on real conflicts pretty tasteless to be honest...not to mention much less interesting. Give me a call when the Taliban ride chimaeras.

 

[Crazy_Bird]

Well again I have a problem with the answers.

It is reasonable commentary? Not really since most games do not convey a political message or any point of view.

It is just a game? Not quite yet I chose this. Remember the games are art discussion?`I feel that this possible answer neglects the potential games have to be a powerful medium to show and explore different points of view.

 

[Assassin Xaero]

I have a book about the war over there and nobody made a big deal about that. I've lost a friend over there, but that doesn't make me hate games based off that war. If you don't like it, don't play it. I won't be playing it because it looks just like MW2 and the PC retail price.

 

[Jezzascmezza]

I don't think it particularly deserves controversy.
That whole "Six Days in Fallujah" thing was ridiculous.

 

[Phishfood]

This is one of those where the answer comes if you flip the argument - what if they DIDN'T let you play as the other side, only acknowledging the existence of the heroic americans/brits/canadians etc etc. The taliban exist, deal with it.

 

[Deadlock Radium]

I don't mind it, I think it adds to the realistic atmosphere of some games, feeling like you're actually there fighting a real war.

 

[Veret]

This question is really annoying. Some games are responsible commentary, some games are tasteless exploitation, and some really are just plain irrelevant. How I feel about their existence depends entirely on which one it is. Can we please stop doing questions that are so vague as to be completely meaningless?

I don't want to just be that guy who complains all the time, though, so here's my take on the question I wish you'd asked: I thought the gunship level in CoD4 was a good example of responsible commentary, as it took a very relevant and nuanced issue in modern warfare (dehumanization of the enemy) and presented it with minimal bias. Then Infinity Ward screwed it up in MW2 with the No Russian level, where they simply killed a bunch of civilians to get media attention--very tasteless. And playing the Taliban in Medal of Honor? I don't know yet which one that will be, because I haven't played it yet. Ahem.

 

[Kollega]

New MoH only allows you to play as terrorists in multiplayer. When it comes to multiplayer, it is in fact just a game. Multiplayer carries no story, no message. Ideally, it should be portrayed as abstract "team A versus team B", where both sides are equally (un)sympathetic. But in MoH it is put in the context of Afghanistan, and there is no choice but to make Taliban one of the teams. Or maybe set it somewhere original, or cut the multiplayer - but that's not how we are doing it these days, right?

If and when it comes to single player, however (like in Modern Warfare 2), it'll probably turn out to be tasteless exploitation.

 

[JackRyan64]

Where's the "I don't play them because they're boring" option? I don't really think they're tasteless exploitation or proper commentary at this point, but I'm not sure "it's just a game" summarizes my feelings accurately.

 

[Quid Plura]

I think it depends on what they want to do with the conflict. Will they try and make an unbiased game of it (which I doubt)? Or will they make yet another game where you shoot everything and kill everyone who wears a djellaba?

Someone already said it, but the complexity of present day conflict is too big for a game publisher to handle. And a realistic depiction is not wanted I guess.

 

[viranimus]

Ok.. I will say this. I really have no problem with the setting and context element of the games. It is a form of expression. Its really no different than novelists who wrote fiction during the civil war regarding the war, or current media crafting content pulled from the headlines. I get that the controversy over Six Days in Fallujah existed and it had... some merit, but that merit is vastly overinflated.

However, I do think that military shooters present a factor people tend to miss. Military shooters are be it purposely or inadvertently are tools for recruitment for the actual military. So much so that the US army has has been onboard for about the last 5 years with its own that is constantly being developed and given away for free as a recruitment tool.

Im not saying that the genre purposeful form of propaganda, but the sheer over saturation of military shooters on the market, and the effects that it has in a sense can be akin to a gateway drug for drug abuse. Look at the number of faux gun nuts that can distinguish and have informed opinions on military hardware, yet have never actually held a weapon more advanced than a pistol or a hunting rifle, let alone use one. While it might not do much to aid recruitment, with volunteerism at all time lows every little bit helps. Perhaps its time for the government to give credit to the developers for pushing this motif.

Now, please keep in mind this is just my opinion on it, and god knows I hate to come off Jack Thompson-y here, but I had to vote its tasteless exploitation, and I felt compelled to explain why I voted the way I did when the reason is not the intended answer. Again, just my opinion, take it for what its worth. Nothing.

Im guessing 4 OQs We shall see.

 

[Jesus Phish]

My actual view on such games is that are very very boring and very very dull.

I miss it when FPS's didnt nearly all be based on modern warfare. There's very little imagination in such games.

 

[Mysnomer]

You can't say, in general, that games based on real conflict lean either way. Some will have a message, and some will just be stirring up controversy. I chose "Just a game" because that's how I feel a lot of developers approach it. And if they don't care, why should I?