Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Editorial Entertainment Games

War (Games) are Hell and so are the Ads 111

Posted by CowboyNeal from the beyond-the-boundary-of-taste dept.
An anonymous reader writes "As the clock ticks down for ShellShock: Nam' 67 we find out that the press releases are as controversial as the game. RedassedBaboon quotes several of the email press releases that seem to brag about the joys of killing and fun of having sex with a base camp mama san. My favorite obnoxious and mostly non-sensical email quote: 'You'll always remember your first kill. And in ShellShock: Nam'67 you'll definitely get more than just one.' The article goes on to point out how this behind the screens publicity push runs contrary to the public face of the game - which is supposed to depict the real horrors of war. The article ends with this thought: 'I can't imagine Coppola or Stone sending out exhuberent messages to the national press about how fun it was going to be to catch a wave off the coast of Vietnam in Apocalypse Now or how sexy Platoon's mama sans are. Before the gaming industry can be taken seriously by the world, it has to be taken seriously by itself.' How very true."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

War (Games) are Hell and so are the Ads More

War (Games) are Hell and so are the Ads

Comments Filter:

  • Scary (Score:4, Insightful)

    by MikeSweetser ( 163852 ) * on Saturday September 04, 2004 @11:50AM (#10157613) Homepage
    I agree with the article, this IS pretty scary. I have no problem with war games, but basically making a joke out of a serious subject like this is somewhat over the line, IMO..

    Mike

    • Re:Scary (Score:4, Insightful)

      by 77Punker ( 673758 ) <(ude.tniophgih) (ta) (40rcneps)> on Saturday September 04, 2004 @12:00PM (#10157655)
      Yeah, and nobody made a joke out of WWII? WWII was a much larger problem than Vietnam, but we ended up with TV shows like Hogan's Heroes and games like BF1942; neither of these seem to take it too seriously yet they were commercial successes.

      • Re:Scary (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Blakey Rat ( 99501 ) on Saturday September 04, 2004 @12:40PM (#10157823)
        In Hogan's Heros, the humor was based around the fact that the Germans never knew what was going on while the American prisoners had already figured out the prison and were doing more for the war effort by being in prison then they could have been with a rifle on the front lines. It wasn't making light of the war, it was basically just "ain't those Nazi's stupid and those Americans with-it?" propaganda made after the war.

        I've never played Battlefield 1942, so I can't speak for it.

        • Re:Scary (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Minna Kirai ( 624281 )
          It wasn't making light of the war,

          Yes it was. Not quite as bad as F-Troop, but still humiliating to watch today. "Combat in Color" and MASH were more respectful.

          "ain't those Nazi's stupid

          The 2 German characters, Klink and Schutz, were not Nazis. The show depicted Nazis as dangerous and intelligent compared to them. Indeed, some episodes had the Nazi SS threatening to take over Col. Klink's job, which would've ruined Hogan's spy plans.

          I've never played Battlefield 1942, so I can't speak for it.
          • They really should of had some the civillian characters as enemy forces with signifigant penalty for killing the wrong ones.

            (the no existant civilians you said should have been in there that is).
      • The main reason why people are saying this is messed up, is because they are advertising this game as a serious, war-based game that will depict the horrors of war. Yet, when they advertise it in emails, they talk about getting it on with a chick, and how awesome it will be to blow the hell out of charlies.
      • There's no reason to bring BF1942 into this. Its a game, but its not like they take it over the edge. Its realistic in many aspects, but its not meant to highlight the ugliness of war, but rather the skill involved.

        And the new BF:Vietname goes a step further. Have you heard the VC lady on the loudspeaker in the camp on some maps? She says things like "your government sent you to die", and other VERY realistic phrases. Creeps me out every time I play on that map as an Allied troop.

    • Re:Scary (Score:5, Interesting)

      by merdark ( 550117 ) on Saturday September 04, 2004 @12:55PM (#10157909)
      I agree, but personally, I think making any *game* out of real historical wars is wrong.

      It is decidedly easy to make fictional war games, and I'd say they would even be more interesting. There are a number of problems with real war games.

      For instance, 90% of the horrors of war are not shown. What are we trying to say? That our grandparents experiences were 'fun competition?' That war is fun in general? There is no way that a game can simulate the real fear of dying that soldiers face, or losing a best friend, or family member.

      Another problem with war games is that they are *always* about the US beating somebody up. Not being from the USA, playing games which are 'ra ra usa' is simply not fun. Sure, some of the multiplayer games allow you to be the enemy... but this is small consolation for non US gamers.

      The lack of non-US war games is also illustrative of the war like nature of the American culture. While most societies feel war is to be avoided at all costs, American society is rife with things glorifying war, and games are the biggest souce of such propaganda.

      Since this site is US centric, I am sure I will get lots of responses showing that there *ARE* non-US based war games. And other societies DO glorify war. I have no doubt such examples exist, but the fact remains that the vast majority of war games are American, and make light of very serious topic.

      • Re:Scary (Score:1, Interesting)

        by meta-monkey ( 321000 ) *
        These games are made primarily by American companies, for market in America. What do you think American gamers are more likely to buy: a game where you play as an American soldier in World War II, or a game where you play as the British in the Fauklands war?

        You may be right about the culture, though.

        The lack of non-US war games is also illustrative of the war like nature of the American culture. While most societies feel war is to be avoided at all costs, American society is rife with things glorifying

        • Well, France won WW1, so they could make a game about THAT.

        • Re:Scary (Score:2, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward
          I'm sure there are war games made by French game companies for market in France. "Press A to drop your weapon." "Press B to surrender." "Use the X button to out Jews to the Nazis and build up your collaboration meter!"

          Really? The French game I bought must be older because it set during the American Revolution and it has them pulling our asses out of the fire.

          • That was France 1.0, the Monarchy Edition. We're up to 5.0 now (4th Republic) and QA has really been laying down on the job of late.
            • So then of course any stereotypes about France surrendering in WW2 (which is a resentful thing to say as it ignores the massive casualties and fierce resistance movement) are invalid, because that's version 4.0, the 3rd republic, right?

        • Re:Scary (Score:3, Insightful)

          by merdark ( 550117 )
          In America, war is avoided up to the point where the cost of not going to war is higher than the cost of going to war. Since war is sometimes necessary, and we are very thankful to those who fight for us, we glorify the soldiers, and hence, the acts of warfare in which they engage. This is a healthy way to protect America's national interests, so I have no problem with video games that refelect these same values.

          This is an interesting view. I guess I would question whether this is the best way to thank th

        • Re:Scary (Score:5, Insightful)

          by slux ( 632202 ) on Saturday September 04, 2004 @04:21PM (#10158759)
          Americans making arrogant remarks about the French not fighting for their country really make my blood boil. There were 210,000 french soldiers and 350,000 french civilians killed in the second world war.

          They were in the unfortunate position to be direct border neigbors to the Germans, I doubt Britain would've lasted either if they had been a similar situation.

          The USA had a significant part in ending the war, no doubt. But that was only after the Japanese dragged you into it in 1943. Before that USA was content with letting the rest of the world fall under Nazi rule as long as they wouldn't try conquering their country (isolationism).

          Meanwhile, the French and British (and the rest of europe) was under war for all of 1939-45. I find it somewhat disappointing that almost every movie is mostly about the american involvement and can only imagine how much more the european soldier has had to gone thru with enduring war over twice as long.

          The French weren't cowards, Hitler just had a very strong army. On the other hand, the Americans were a bit slow to take part at all.

          Had to be said. By the way, I'm not French. I'm Finnish.

          • Re:Scary (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Radius9 ( 588130 )
            This is off-topic, but I have to agree with your statement. In addition to what you said, during the buildup before the war, it was the French that were screaming bloody hell about Germany, and how Germany was not to be trusted. The British and the US (although primarily Britian, the US had little to nothing to do with the war at this point) kept letting Germany slide on violations of the rules imposed on them after WWI. Unfortunately, the French were unwilling at the beginning to go at Germany alone, pa
            • Ummm. No.

              France and England both failed to take any steps, even so much as a public statement, against Hitler when he was rearming Germany. England was doing a bad enough job that one could make a case that the Franch weren't expecting any support. But that situation puts the burden on France to develop an effective defence. The Naval Agreement between Britain and Germany in, oh, 1935-ish formalized a breach of the Versailles Treaty. The 1930s saw some crass stupidity in European geopolitics, which goes a
          • A slight correction, Pearl Harbour was in December 1941, so the US did go into World War 2 slightly earlier than 1943. But it would've taken some time for America to move it's armies around[1] and get into major combat.

            But some Americans on forums are really obnoxious about their contributions to the World Wars. The US was important, but the US didn't single handily win the World Wars. It gets really annoying, along with the rest of the anti-Francism.

            [1] Let along it's leggies.
          • Off-topic, but true. I always get a chuckle off the french jokes here in Slashdot, but some people actually take them seriously.

            Like you said, no one denies the *huge* impact of the USA in WWII, but the rest of the world also exists, and most of it was involved and did their fair share. Saying the French "didn't fight for their country" is both ignorant and insulting.
            • i deny it.

              Impact yes.....*huge* i is debatable. US involvement didnt "win" the war as is portrayed by the US media/holywood....what is certain however is that it probably shortened WW2 by several years. Without american intervention the war would likely have carried on until nearer 1950.
        • You're right that wargames sell better if the player can use American troops.

          There are noteable exceptions, like the massively sucessful Panzer General, which only allowed you to play as the Germans. If you played skilfully, you crushed continental Europe and Britain before the Americans even joined the war. The optimum plot line had you invading America.

          The Eastern Front is a popular wargaming setting. I love the Russian/German tank battles of Combat Mission and Close Combat.
      • Um, seriously, check out the glut of Japanese games about fuedal Japan. There is a reason the Japanese tend not to make games about WWII, they lost, and most Japanese seem to want to forget the whole thing ever happened. However, games about th e wars of the Shogun and Daimyo etc are very popular, because it's easy to glorify that type of war.
        Gah, people like you almost make Sean Hannity look sane.......almost
      • There is no way that a game can simulate the real fear of dying that soldiers face, or losing a best friend, or family member.
        I understand Acclaim was working on this when they went under. It was gonna tie in with Turok 4 or something.
      • I think games which respect and tribute the subject matter are fine. Call of Duty was a good example, IMO.

        War games are *not* always about the US beating somebody up. Trying playing a few more.

        Yay, let's take another chance to bash America, right?
        • War games are *not* always about the US beating somebody up. Trying playing a few more.

          Yay, let's take another chance to bash America, right?

          I admit my bias against America. But there seriously ARE a ton of games where you play an american soldier. This is maybe not surprising, since most wars since WWII seem to primarily involve America: Vietnam, Gulf, Afganistan, Iraq (I don't consider bombing Kosovo a 'war').
          • Well, many such games are made in the US, so it makes sense. Just off the top of my head, however, in Call of Duty, you play as British, Russians and Americans (always against the Germans, however).

            In the Close Combat series, you can play as either allies or Germans.

            Most games are from the perspective of the country where they're made, for pretty obvious reasons. But there are many games where you play as people from other countries, on both sides (even against the US).

            And I wouldn't say that most wars
      • I agree, but personally, I think making any *game* out of real historical wars is wrong.

        I'm not sure how else to say this but you're being a bit of a pussy aren't you?

        Another problem with war games is that they are *always* about the US beating somebody up.

        Really? Even Rome: Total War? Even Rise of Nations? Even Warcraft? Even Worms 3D?

        • Rome Total War? Even Rise of Nations?

          These are ancient wars. I don't count these since these countries don't exist anymore.

          Even Warcraft? Even Worms 3D?

          Umm...these are fictional. The topic was war games involving current countries. At least I figured the current countries part was implied.
      • Yeah, like Call of Duty (a game of the year winner) and one of the bigger WWII game sellers - it was only about the US, oh - and the Brits, and the Russsians...

        And the fact that the majority of developers happen to be in the USA has nothing to do with this I'm sure.

        Sorry, my sarcasm knob is stuck at 10 this morning.
      • I agree, but personally, I think making any *game* out of real historical wars is wrong.

        Do you also think that movies and books about real wars are wrong? Or is there some reason that movies can better "simulate the real fear of dying that soldiers face"? I can't think of any.

  • Stupid Publicity (Score:2, Insightful)

    by clarus ( 39399 )
    Is it just me, or is this a bad attempt at trying to gain sales numbers by being "as cool GTA3." I think that perhaps the gaming industry is taking itself too seriously. It certainly can be proven that a bad banned book gets read a lot more than just a bad book, and if they can stir up trouble, it might just stir up their sales.

    --clarus

  • Think of the children! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 04, 2004 @11:56AM (#10157638)
    Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children?
    • You sure that's a good idea? Ask Michael Jackson.

    • Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children?

      Apparantly somebody is. I'd never heard of a `mama san', so I googled for it. Apparantly it refers to a woman who works as a hostess at a bar, but it seems to also mean a geisha or a prostitute.

      In Japanese, adding -san to the end of a name is a sign of respect, but in this case, `mama san' is not a nice thing to call somebody. Though I'm not sure why Japanese terms would end up being used for the Vietnam war -- totally differerent countries, different cu

      • I'm not a liinguistics scholar or an expert on military history, but I'm guessing the history of "mama san" is something like this: "Mama" is derisive/insulting slang for a woman in the US ("Hey, hot momma!", etc). Many US soldiers came to Vietnam by way of Okinawa (There was, and is, a major US military base there and it was used for staging deployment into Vietnam). In Okinawa, the local Japanese would address soldiers with respect "-san", and the solders would associate that with asian people. Add a dash
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Sure. The trick is, you just don't lead them so much.

  • Joking about it now ... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by isolationism ( 782170 ) on Saturday September 04, 2004 @11:59AM (#10157644) Homepage
    ... Seems like a precusor to, "And that's the way it actually happened," 20 years from now. Which do you think kids will associate with better -- the history book they didn't read, or getting to pillage and rape in a village in glorious 3D? :|
    • they wouldn't be playing graphically detailed and realistic war games. At least not until they're old enough to distinguish reality and fantasy. It's called Parenting. Of course, I'm too lazy to acually do it, which is precicely why I don't have kids (it's got nothing to do with me posting on /. on a Saturday night, really :D ).

  • Pretty sad (Score:5, Insightful)

    by solojony ( 774539 ) on Saturday September 04, 2004 @12:48PM (#10157870) Journal
    How sad, that depicting women who have to sell their body to invading soldiers to get food or other goods is becoming a joke... I have no problems with the tactical meaning of a war which can be reduced to rules to a game (read The Art of War [wikipedia.org] if you don't think that war hasn't a game-like aspect), but trivializing social impact of wars like that is going too far.

    What's next, husbands beating women at The sims 3 and getting points for it?

    What is worse, is that games like Manhunt that depicts a brutal *FANTASY* get more bad press than a game that depicts REAL SEXUAL ABUSE laughing at it. It makes me feel sick. I'm against any kind of censorship if you are going to show it, show it like it is, it's cruel, it's sad, it's something everyone should be ashamed of. Show it at a game or at a movie, but don't come to me saying than screwing mama-sans at the base camp is fun like some wicked holiday camp for kids with killing and raping included.

    • What's next, husbands beating women at The sims 3 and getting points for it?

      But if it happens in a game, then it's OK according to Slashdot conventional wisdom. We are all smart enough to tell reality from fiction, and playing these games will have no effect on our minds, unless the games are made by the US Army, in which case they are evil brainwashing tools designed to turn us into willing agents of neocon imperialist aggression.

  • real horrors of war? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TheLink ( 130905 ) on Saturday September 04, 2004 @01:17PM (#10158009) Journal
    Uh realism is overrated in games.

    Hands up who wants to play a soldier that's air dropped many miles away from the actual site due to various reasons ranging from "plane got shot" to "bad weather"

    And then having to hike all the way for hours to the actual site and then getting your leg blown off in the first 10 seconds of the firefight. Then spending years in a PoW camp eating weeds[1] and some nondescript gruel.

    [1] Apparently someone mixed ground up iron nails and weeds/leaves into the rations as a vitamin supplement while a PoW.
  • There have been plenty of games about 'Nam in the past-- Platoon on the NES, Nam 1975, etc... But it's hard to get riled up over 8-bit sprites. Now that games are much more immersing and realistic, they also run the risk of being unsettling if they don't handle

    Two games that come a little close to crossing the line IMO are Black Hawk Down and the upcoming S.T.A.L.K.E.R.

    For the one or two who aren't aware, in the former, you're a U.S. soldier in Somalia defending villages and U.N. caravans from warlords.
    • It just feels... wrong.

      Good. It should feel wrong. If the game helps USA voters think harder about sending an all-white paratroop to kill a few "bad guy" Africans in the middle of a large, heavily-armed African town, so much the better.

      Considering the hundreds of thousands who were affected in horrible ways by the accident-

      You're off by a factor of 50x there, if not 500x.
    • Whether it's too recent or not is up for interpretation, but as far as the enemies all being black, that's just what happened. It was in Somalia, after all. It wasn't because of race, though, it was because of politics (war being an extension of politics by other means). I mean, in Vietnam games, all your enemies are Vietnamese. In any WWII Pacific game, all your enemies would be Japanese. I can play any of these games without having any sort of ill will toward a specific race just because they make up
  • Slashdot is usually a bastion of free speech. Hell, we've got the YRO section specifically dedicated to censorship and whatnot.

    I can't believe how many posts are saying this game "goes too far". This game. When ManHunt first came out. It seems Slashdotters have no problem saying which games should not be allowed to exist.

    I've got bad news for you - kids. Being in favor of Free Speech and Freedom in general means DEFENDING both the things that you agree with, and ESPECIALLY those things that YOU find offen

    • Re:AMAZING... Utterly Amazing... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Talrias ( 705583 ) <chris.starglade@org> on Saturday September 04, 2004 @03:37PM (#10158582) Homepage
      No, you have it wrong.

      Defending freedom of speech does not mean you are defending what people say, you are defending that they are legally allowed to say it.

      This by no means suggests that saying it is a good idea - which is what these guys are arguing. They aren't arguing that people who say this kind of stuff should be locked away etc., they are saying that the people who make these games probably shouldn't (because it's rather immoral and unethical), but they can if they want to!

      "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -- Voltaire

      "Just because you can say something, doesn't mean you should." -- Me
      • I was waiting for somebody to make this argument.

        Censorship does not START with a law being inacted against saying XYZ.

        Censorship STARTS with someone saying "Saying XYZ goes too far" - without qualifying the statement further.

        You want to say "This game is disgusting, deals with subject matter in a way that I cannot agree with." that's fine. Whatever.

        But using the phrase "... Goes too far" (Direct quote, look up - way up) is implying that some unwritten rule of what's acceptable has been broken. If you w
        • The KKK (or groups like it) have been around in the United States for about one hundred years, I'd reckon that most people think what they say is extreme now and think it goes too far, but I still don't see any laws preventing them from saying what they say.

          I hear the phrase 'slippery slope' on Slashdot alot, but it's a pathetic argument (being a logical fallacy [datanation.com]). There are plenty of extremist groups which express their right to freedom of speech in the US, who are still allowed to say it even though what
          • I hear the phrase 'slippery slope' on Slashdot alot, but it's a pathetic argument (being a logical fallacy [datanation.com]).

            Wow - did you even read the link you posted? Do you have any clue what a logical fallacy actually is?

            What YOUR OWN link is saying is that the way to refute a 'Slippery Slope' argument is to show how the huge consequence does not necessarily follow from the initial step.

            Slippery Slope arguments are perfectly valid - EVEN ACCORDING TO YOUR OWN LINK.
            • Yes, they are valid sometimes - in this case, no.

              1. Game produced which has some rather tasteless material.
              2. People comment that the material is tasteless.
              3. More people agree that this is very tasteless and request laws against this kind of stuff.
              4. Laws against tasteless material brought in. Freedom of speech destroyed.

              This is your great slipperly slope argument (which hasn't happened FYI). Now let's look at a real life situation of far greater magnitude than a computer game:

              1. KKK founded ~100 years
          • From http://www.fallacyfiles.org/slipslop.html [fallacyfiles.org]

            This type is based upon the claim that a controversial type of action will lead inevitably to some admittedly bad type of action. It is the slide from A to Z via the intermediate steps B through Y that is the "slope", and the smallness of each step that makes it "slippery".

            This type of argument is by no means invariably fallacious, but the strength of the argument is inversely proportional to the number of steps between A and Z, and directly proportional t
          • The KKK (or groups like it) have been around in the United States for about one hundred years,

            No. 100 years ago was 1904. The KKK goes back to before 1840.

            Fun fact: The KKK was founded in response to a group of abolitionist terrorists that went around in black robes with pointy hats.
          • Honestly be allowed to say what they say, *unless* they are actively urging people to commit violence (which IIRC is illegal in any case) against a minority.

            I think that people have a right to not like a particular group and even talk about how they don't like that group, but the moment that they specifically urge violence, it becomes illegal.

            Disclaimer: I'm not a member of any of this sort of group, nor am I racist in the least. I just think that no matter how unpopular or morally reprehensible to most
        • So are you saying that people who use the phrase "goes too far" are going too far?

      • "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -- Voltaire

        Voltaire never said or wrote that. It was Evelyn Beatrice Hall.

  • War games can be great teachers of history (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SmallFurryCreature ( 593017 ) on Saturday September 04, 2004 @03:19PM (#10158511) Journal
    In theorie that is. Most western people will have no real idea what warfare is like. I am one of the last people to be drafted in Holland so most younger then me won't even know what a rifle feels like. Not just the bloody size of it, we trained with the FAL, but how bloody impossible it is to do anything when you are constently supposed to keep it with you.

    To many guns are not real and war is not real. You can see an excellent example in many young americans whose response to vietnam is that they should go back and finish the job. TV and movies have made them believe that they could have won and that is was the hippies that made america withdraw.

    Make a realistic war game and people will at least get a real fast lesson in what war is really really like. No med packs. No magic armour. No "secret" weapons. Just you, a rifle designed by someone behind a desk, grenades wich hurt you just as easily as the enemy, friendly fire and of course the enemey. You die, you die.

    Want to know what real war is like? Well real war does not allow you to retry the mission from the latest save point.

    Just as motorist organisations use "drunk" driver simulations to safely teach the folly of driving a good war game can tell you the folly of war.

    A good vietnam game would tell the story from both sides and not be afraid to be extremely controversial. America was defintly not the good guy in vietnam. Considering the amount of civilians killed you can not come to any other conclusion that they must have been deliberate targets.

    A realistic vietnam game could never be made since it would not sell. Oliver stone made 3 vietnam movies. 2 showed the americans as "heroes". One did not. Guess wich one failed at the box office.

    WW2 games are plentifull and many allow you to play both sides yet none reflect the true nature of WW2, the rounding up of civilians and the transports to the extermination camps, the shooting of prisoners of war. The punishment details against cities and towns.

    Maybe china will make a game showing vietnam from the communist side.

    • I agree with most of your points. I think that making blatantly unrealistic games based on a war (especially one in living memory) kind of trivializes it. I think that Call of Duty is an example of a war-based FPS that doesn't, although it's not perfect. I know that unless I'm actually in war, I will never understand it, and thus don't pretend to. I know a lot about details and facts (being a military historian), but I haven't experienced it. That's why I like (realistic) war games, since the good ones
    • Maybe china will make a game showing vietnam from the communist side.

      Didn't they have a war or two between vietnam and china after the americans were kicked out?

  • I hear that it's not very good, but the people who say that are likely stereotypical twitch gamers, so take that with a grain of salt. I haven't played it yet, but it sounds a lot like Vietcong [vietcong-game.com], which was pretty good.

    Anyway, this article just proves that marketing people are idiots. If that means that the gaming industry doesn't take itself seriously, then just about anything else that involves marketing doesn't take itself seriously either.

    Rob
  • All this from an anonymous person quoting someone named RedassedBaboon.

  • irony (FMJ) (Score:4, Interesting)

    by nmoore ( 22729 ) on Saturday September 04, 2004 @06:52PM (#10159327) Homepage

    Those writing the press releases sound---intentionally or not, ironically or not---like military recruiters. One could argue that, by lauding the joys of killing and the pleasures of Mama San (how racist-sounding can you get?), Eidos is starting the immersion before you even begin playing the game.

    All movies about the horror of war have to deal with this problem in one way or another. How do you simultaneously:

    • accurately portray the mindset of warriors trained to kill without thought,
    • get the audience to identify with the characters and become involved in the film,
    • without desensitizing the audience to the horrors they are seeing?

    One way to do this is to go ahead and let the audience get desensitized. Then, when they are high on blood and ammo, punch them in the gut with something they didn't get desensitized enough for. To some extent, that's what happened in the last part of Full Metal Jacket. The problem with this approach is that individuals have widely differing responses to the tactic. A substantial part of the audience will be over-desensitized and miss the point entirely; others will remain sensitive throughout, and think of the film as glorifying violence even when the intent is quite the opposite. I suspect something similar will happen with this game. The additional interactivity only makes identification happen that much faster.

    • Those writing the press releases sound---intentionally or not, ironically or not---like military recruiters.

      No they don't. No real US recruiter has ever tried to make combat sound fun (especially not in official publications). And they CERTAINLY never advertised "Join the Army, and meet exotic, inexpensive whores!" The Army is always careful to use euphemisms, and to cast themselves as reluctant warriors.
  • Plays like a crappy console port. Maybe it is. The motion is impossible to get used to, slow, non-responsive. The terrain is outdated.

    The graphics are interesting, and "filmed" through a grainy lens.

    But the combat plays somewhat like a Vietnam-themed Painkiller; enemies pour endlessly out of tunnels until you destroy the tunnel. Your squaddies seemingly never get hit. You can stumble drunkenly (since you can't really run fast or maneuver) through clouds of bullets that should slap you down faster tha

Slashdot Top Deals

The use of money is all the advantage there is to having money. -- B. Franklin

Close