I dunno if I am getting on a bit, or what, but I am geniunly becoming offended by killing in games. It's really odd. Not sure what it is. The biggest thing recently that has set me off is the adverts for Battlefield Vietnam, I mean this is a game based on a conflict that only happened 40 ish years ago, where hundreds of thousands of people died, and its now basically being made light of in a computer game. It's just not right.
-
-
I felt the same thing over MOH:Frontline. -
Just think when these games get really photorealistic and the gore is still turned up.Comment
-
I can see your point, although such titles do go some way to redeem such 'cashing in' on war when they, through superior coding, present a realistic experience. The MOH series doesn't necessarily do this, even though they make great pains to highlight the present of Lt Dale Dye as their technical advisor, due to the sheer number of games they are churning out + taking such a huge and serious subject and making a mediocre game out of it.
If you're prepared to tackle something as weighty as WWII in video-game form then you damn well better do a good job of it, although the public's insistence of looking at the setting and licence over the game itself cannot be underestimated ( my Dad is a man who cannot stand for incompetence in any form, yet he plays and enjoys the MOH series because it has a far more 'serious' setting than something like Halo, even though the latter game is superior ).
I do feel a pang of guilt when I realise I'm gaining enjoyment from games like Vietcong, although the vicarious tension and vulnerability experienced through the game did make me thank God I never had to experience such a thing in real-life, so in an odd way the supposed cash-in becomes one with an almost anti-war message.
It's a thin line, there's no doubt, but just as sex sells so does historic violence, and while I despise the cynicism of fooling people like my father into believing that they're taking part in more of a history lesson than a 'kill everything that moves' FPS, I am grateful to some measure that a number of these games have made me relieved I never have to experience war in any shape or form.Comment
-
Hmmm...
These debates are hard to bring up constructively without somone defensively banging on about censorship and everyone's 'right' to indulge in whatever they wish as adults. All true, but essentially missing the point.
Even though I don't necessarily share your sentiments, I know what you're saying. I tend to find gratuitous violence incredibly boring and unimaginative (it's been around since I had a C64 - big deal).
For a long time I've wondered where games will take this, especially as realism is constantly being chased and as pandering to the lowest common denominator is easy money in any industry.
As for gamse on Vietnam, where does one draw the line? It could be argued that any games alluding to real-life conflicts are just as tasteless.Comment
-
That's why I tend to stay away from historical interpretations of past events which get transfigured into some form of play. It's hypocritical of me to criticise videogaming interpretation of things such as war, especially when you consider other forms of entertainment have been making money from such events for decades...
But the way I see it, series such as Medal of Honour or Conflict Desert Storm trivialise their subject matter. And as tasty as something as Full Spectrum Warrior is, I can't help but get the sense I'd feel uncomfortable in playing it.
As for killing in games of a fictional nature... Personally, I don't have many problems with it, because it's possible to base your interactions down in an abstract sense. All you're doing is using character A to inactivate character B, C or D. In that sense, a game such as Manhunt could be compared to a game such as Ikaruga. If you strip away the aesthetic content then you're ultimately performing the same task: Nihilistic eradication of what's around you. A major dynamic with videogaming is based on satisfying a human compulsion to destroy, at least in my opinion. There's something primal about it, and yet I also think the potential this medium has to offer could be in revealing parts of ourselves which we often choose to ignore.
As a species, I think we often like destroying things and taking them away from each other. In a game such as Tetris, the lines you correctly sort disappear after you've managed to fit shapes in the ‘right’ way. With that disappearance comes the satisfaction that you're competing successfully with the game. On a similar level, a game such as Ocarina of Time rewards you with killing enemies by opening certain doors in certain dungeons for progression. To move on from A to B you have to eradicate a set of objects the game puts in front of you. Effectively, it's all down to how you see it and if you view aesthetic content as part of the gameplay or not... If you don't then you could also quite easily see collecting all the star shines on a Super Mario 64 course as 'killing' that course as soon as you've completed it. For example, you've destroyed any worthwhile aims or objectives left on that level.
Because I believe in the power that aesthetic content can have over this medium, I take offence in most modern day war games because of how they trivialise their fact-based subject matter through the dynamic of play, (which has to be deemed as fun usually just to be a commercial success). As for games which aren't based on real-life events, then I don't have much of a problem with them as long as their subject matter is relevant to the ideas the designers want to express elsewhere in their game. Yet, I do realise ‘unrealistic’ subject matter can be influenced by cultural events around it, and in no way I am suggesting this medium is immune to the effects of real-life violent happenings. Yet, as long as fictional violence is justified by areas of content such as gameplay, aesthetic, themes etc. then I don't see it in anyway 'bad'. If a game can let me dive in it's world and out of my own, then I am often all the happier for that. Whether it's realistic or not is beside the point in the way I view this matter, because I enjoy exploring connections to our world that aren't influenced directly by social events. In a way, I see videogaming worlds as that much more cohesive when they stay in their own realm. For example, when I kill a terrorist in Metal Gear Solid, I am doing so in context of the game's own specific storyline unique to it's own identity. In a game such as Soldiers: Heroes of World War II, I don't think I may appreciate the context transcending both fiction and reality, yet I do acknowledge the potential in terms of evolution for playing about with historical perception. A game such as Ring Of Red, for example, distorts and tinkers about with the 'what if' scenario had World War II ended differently. Posing questions on real happenings and exploring them in a videogaming format is an intriguing prospect, that’s for sure, but in my opinion the form and function of the medium contradicts possible aspects of narrative. For example, imagine having to repeat a hugely dramatic and horrific historical event over and over again because it happened to be too hard? After a while, the effects and saddening aspects of death and destruction would wear thin, and the core dynamics of the game would undermine the power that the narrative is essentially trying to get across. It’s a very delicate balance to maintain compulsion of play against a sense of social moral responsibility, unless you abandon them altogether. This is why I think games which are essentially built into their own context, and function primarily in themselves, have the ability to transcend contradicting specific themes within their content, and remain more consistent because of this.
In Manhunt, the linear nature with which the game occurs, and the unfolding circumstances surrounding the character's background, explains and validates (to an extent) in having to act through a violent manner. You're a piece of **** mixed in with other pieces of ****. Therefore because Manhunt abandons morality, the act of killing isn't held back by any principles that will constantly contradict themselves via conflicting values. In a game such as Viewtiful Joe on the other hand... Well because the title is fictional in itself and takes place in a fictional world within that very framework, the enemies you are killing are those in a movie. In the game's world they never existed in the first place, and that absolves you to a certain extent of having ‘killed’ anything. Having said that, I always find there's something deliciously ironic how in order to continually save the world, Mario has to eradicate and essentially go about and ethnic cleanse species in his landscape. Bowser, and the various species of his minions all have to be continually destroyed just so the Mushroom Kingdom can be empty and pure again for another adventure to take place.
See?
It all depends how you view it. Killing in videogames is continually contradictory depending on the way you want to value the killing which takes place in light of the narrative and other aesthetic portions.
I think entertainment has always thrived on the depiction of violence. The trouble with videogaming is that it's an interactive medium, so it obviously sometimes incites reaction which is suspicious that people who play games, are those letting out hidden violent intent via a non-confrontational manner. For me, violent interaction in videogaming is used as a USP because that's partly what underlines the medium as a whole.
I think the form is inherently violent by nature, both in an abstract and aesthetic sense.Comment
-
I'm not sure I agree with this. IMO, gaming certainly isn't any more 'violent' than any other medium out there.Originally posted by Concept
For the most part, the focal point of a game is winning, trying to 'beat the machine', as it were. Any violence -if there is any- is usually secondary - something you have to do to beat the machine, rather than for the sake of indulgence.Comment
-
I think it is. Just look at the ratio of games which require you to kill things to those which don't. I don't think film, literature, theatre or art (on the whole) are as focused as much on violence as videogaming is at this present moment in time.Originally posted by Ady
But like I said, this doesn't necessarily have to be viewed in a negative sense.Comment
-
Really? Even classic litrature revels in violence when it wants to, not to mention action movies, TV, the media in general and even music. It's all around us.Originally posted by Concept
The only differnece with gaming is that you have some measure of control over the action, so it can seem more immediate.Comment
-
I thought the beach landings were kinda cool in MoH (PC). Then I remembered that my gramps was one of the guys who drove the boats. I now tend to steer clear of WWII games, though I'll be getting BF1942 when I get back to Windows (I'm out of the loop, PC gameswise).Comment
-
Ady -
I agree. But I'm talking about proportional value. Violence sells, and because nearly all videogames are designed in the attempt of maximising profits these days, a lot get built around concepts which the audience will understand or desire.
In my opinion, the market isn't as sophisticated compared to other mediums when it comes to sustaining diverse content. Literature and Cinema in particular have commercial business models and the audience base to deliver content that isn't always primarily focused on the bottom dollar.
That isn't to say there aren't plenty of non-aestheically violent videogames, because there are.
I just feel the form isn't as balanced or anywhere near as expansive as other mediums. Yet.
Violence sells big in videogaming because lots of players enjoy and buy violent interaction. Even in games where killing isn't the primary motive, such as ICO, it still happens to some extent.Comment
-
Actually, when I played MOHAA, I thought it was pretty cool and in a way reminded me more of Band of Brothers in a way that maybe you are actually learning more by partaking in that experience (although even then the devcos could make it more brutal - imagine a flashback in slo-mo of a civilian's face as you accidentally shoot him (then again, I'm sure a few sickos would love it)).
However, when MOH was ported and all the Christmas MOH ads for the PS2 came out with the strapline "You don't play; you volunteer" I thought that was actually more sickening than the actual game itself (which was itself, to be honest a bit of a Saving Private Ryan rip (which in turn, was itself at least partly entertaining, as much so as MOH tbh - (compared with Band of Brothers, say)).Comment
Comment