War (Games) are Hell and so are the Ads 111
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."
Scary (Score:4, Insightful)
Mike
Re:Scary (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Scary (Score:4, Insightful)
I've never played Battlefield 1942, so I can't speak for it.
Re:Scary (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Scary (Score:2)
(the no existant civilians you said should have been in there that is).
Re:Scary (Score:1)
Re:Scary (Score:2)
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)
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:3, Informative)
Also, the US never 'won' Vietnam. They pulled out. This is partly why Vietnam was seen as one of the worst wars the US ever involved itself in. But I guess revisionist history now paints Vientam as a stunning display of US power.
You are a perfect example of the ill effects of war games.
Re:Scary (Score:4, Informative)
The beginning of WWII is generally cited as the invasion of Poland in September of 1939. The absolute latest date for US entry (a date that would ignore Lend / Lease and US participation in the Battle of the Atlantic, a grave diservice to the crew of, among others, Reuben James, never mind the quasi-official status of the Flying Tigers) would be December 7, 1941. Since the war ended in August of 1945, it spanned 77 months, and Pearl Harbor was attacked in the 27th month since Poland (arithmetic in my head, but it's about right.) Hardly "near the end".
You remind me of the excellent Beyond the Fringe routine, Aftermyth of War, which ends with something like. "...and then the Americans came in and spoiled everything..."
As for Viet Nam, my favorite comment was the old T-shirt that read something like, "South East Asian War Games, 1958-1972: Second Place"
Re:Scary (Score:2)
Re:Scary (Score:2)
I don't know which joke you mean, although I suppose that almost any joke about that war would be old by now.
Re:Scary (Score:2)
Re:Scary (Score:2)
War in Europe - American entry (Score:3, Interesting)
I think (could be wrong about this) that the first (direct) action by the US in Europe was in Operation Torch in November 1942 (about 39 months after the "start" of the war).
So, by this reckoning, the US did not join in the war in Europe until well after half-way through. This was also after the crucial battles of El Alamein and Stalingrad -- hence the c
Re:War in Europe - American entry (Score:2)
Still, I'd hate for the English, for instance, to forget that Prince of Wales was lost in that other war, just as Americans forget the above-mentioned Reuben James.
Of course, the Russians make a good case that they won the ETO while the rest of us held their coats (and then turned on Japan and beat them into submission in a single day.)
Re:War in Europe - American entry (Score:1)
Oh really? What's the President like in person?
(This year he claimed that both WWII and the "War On Terror" started with an unprovoked airstrike against US soil. Wrong on both counts, actually...)
Re:War in Europe - American entry (Score:1)
Participation can mean things besides actually fighting. Those Europeans should remember what Charles de Gaulle said [lycos.fr] on the topic:
Re:War in Europe - American entry (Score:2)
but I think i get the gist of it, and yes, the immense industry, and some escort ships and aircraft, were in the war earlier than 12/41. In fact, there was some grumbling
Re:Scary (Score:2)
McCain is telling the press pretty much the same thing: Get Over It, We Have a War On NOW.
Re:Scary (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, you could also say that the war wasn't near the end at all, until we jumped into it.
Without the US involvement, most of Europe would be speaking German right now. Including France, including the UK.
It was a choice to become involved. It came late, perhaps, but it was the right choice. Does anyone disagree?
(rant)
I suppose the thing that amuses me about this discussion is, so many (mostly western) Europeans think they understand the US because they see american films, or american tv, or watch fox news or something. The US is an incredibly diverse country. Those of us in northern california are really nothing like southern californians, much less someone from the east coast. There is no way in hell you've experienced a realistic crosssection of our society through the media pinhole you have available to you. And yet, making these broad, stereotypical generalizations of americans is perfectly socially acceptable. I swear to god, you see an Oliver Stone film or two and you think you know everything about this country.
Hell, you forgot that a lot of us weren't even born here. Or if we were, our parents weren't. You don't know me. You don't know my family, my friends. How is it that you think that you do?
(/rant)
Ah... ignorance. It lives everywhere: on both sides of every ocean, it seems.
m-
Re:Scary (Score:1)
Re:Scary (Score:2)
Re:Scary (Score:2, Insightful)
No, not just flamebait. Perhaps some, bit not all.
The point that I was trying to make with my reply was that your rant goes both ways. There are so many Americans who have no idea that the world is far more than the pinhole view that they see on their media. As an Australian living on the East C
Re:Scary (Score:1, Interesting)
You may be right about the culture, though.
Re:Scary (Score:1)
Re:Scary (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re:Scary (Score:2)
Re:Scary (Score:2)
Re:Scary (Score:3, Insightful)
This is an interesting view. I guess I would question whether this is the best way to thank th
Re:Scary (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
Re:Scary (Score:2)
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
Re:Scary (Score:2)
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.
Re:Scary (Score:1)
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.
Re:Scary (Score:1)
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.
Re:Scary (Score:2)
The lend-lease program and supply convoys made a huge difference, but those were both in effect before Pearl Harbor. Although heroic, I'm not sure the French resistance had any real strategic impact on the war, so I'm not sure I follow you there.
America getting involved was certainly huge, but in no way did the US simply
wargames (Score:2)
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.
Re:Scary (Score:2)
Gah, people like you almost make Sean Hannity look sane.......almost
Japanese War Games (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Scary (Score:2)
Re:Scary (Score:2)
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?
Re:Scary (Score:2)
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').
Re:Scary (Score:2)
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
Re:Scary (Score:2)
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?
Re:Scary (Score:2)
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.
Re:Scary (Score:2)
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.
Re:Scary (Score:2)
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)
--clarus
Think of the children! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Think of the children! (Score:2)
Re:Think of the children! (Score:3, Informative)
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
Re:Think of the children! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Think of the children! (Score:1)
Joking about it now ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Um, if I had kids... (Score:2)
Re:Seriously? (Score:2)
On the other hand, there's nothing wrong with a good fun game that's not that serious from time to time.
Pretty sad (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Pretty sad (Score:2)
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)
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.
The content is nothing new. The realism is. (Score:1, Troll)
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.
Re:The content is nothing new. The realism is. (Score:1)
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.
Re:The content is nothing new. The realism is. (Score:2)
AMAZING... Utterly Amazing... (Score:1, Flamebait)
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)
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
Re:AMAZING... Utterly Amazing... (Score:2)
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
Re:AMAZING... Utterly Amazing... (Score:1)
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
Re:AMAZING... Utterly Amazing... (Score:2)
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.
Re:AMAZING... Utterly Amazing... (Score:1)
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
FYI - Slippery Slope & Logical Fallacy (Score:2)
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
Re:AMAZING... Utterly Amazing... (Score:1)
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.
Re:AMAZING... Utterly Amazing... (Score:1)
Chris
Re:AMAZING... Utterly Amazing... (Score:2)
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
Re:AMAZING... Utterly Amazing... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:AMAZING... Utterly Amazing... (Score:2)
Voltaire never said or wrote that. It was Evelyn Beatrice Hall.
War games can be great teachers of history (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:War games can be great teachers of history (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:War games can be great teachers of history (Score:1)
Didn't they have a war or two between vietnam and china after the americans were kicked out?
This game is already out on the warez scene (Score:2)
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
Taken seriously, huh? (Score:1)
irony (FMJ) (Score:4, Interesting)
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:
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.
Re:irony (FMJ) (Score:2)
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.
This game is stirfried dogshit (Score:2)
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