Glorifying War

[Echo35]

It's just like many people in our society who think that teen sex, STDs, and pregnancy result from proper contraceptive sex education (as opposed to abstinence-only education). Yet places all over Europe are much more open about sex, and have better educational programs, and it results in many less pregnancies and STDs. I guess the argument in America is that by teaching kids how to properly have sex using protection, you are somehow promoting it. It's just as silly as the idea that creating a violent video game is the same as influencing someone to go kill people.

Oh my god, somebody gets it! Reminds me of the argument TB made after the Newtown shootings, how in Korea, Starcraft is literally a televised sport and they've never had a school shooting (At least not a big one)

I'm not against what Sega is trying to do with the Company of Heroes 2 theme/story. What I'm against is my perception of WHY they're trying to do it. It doesn't seem very genuine to me, it seems like a dishonest marketing ploy.

As I've mentioned in other threads, I'm big into table top gaming. I also play a lot of old hex and counter wargames, and you should read the descriptions on the back of these boxes. The box for Breakout: Normandy makes the invasion seem to poetic and glorious, which is pretty much the exact opposite reaction of the people I knew that were actually fighting there had. At least with CoH they're trying to make it look like it was a rough time.

[Professor Paul1290]

I'm against modern FPS.  Modern combat makes for terrible gameplay, which means game makers have come up with a ton of really stupid mechanics to keep people interested, which completely negates all the important aspects of modern combat.  CS probably got it closest to correct, but I just found it boring.  I like my combat to have meat to it.  If I get completely destructed by an opponent in a 1v1 duel, it should probably take 15-25 seconds to resolve.  It's like everyone playing Rogues back in the days of stunlocks.  Blah, no thanks.

Note this is just FPSs, and mainly those with "modern" mechanics.  I'm ok with Tribes, that has a good enough combat feel to be fun.  TF2 though is too lethal.  I also don't like the map layout memorization of games with 3D environments.

As a long time Raven Shield, SWAT 4, and the ARMA series fan I'd like to mention that not all "modern shooters" are like CS, CoD, or Battlefield.

To provide an example, here's a mostly whole mission I recorded from last weekend:
Briefing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A063ckDLWd0
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTjcpE7xwI4
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSEqRMNnReM
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPoOTOiYNA0
Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tOuIs9XwXk
For the impatient, first bit of fighting starts at a little after 12:00 in Part 1 and we approach the enter the town in Part 4.
(I say "mostly whole" because I cut around ten minutes out of Part 1 that consisted of mostly pulling security while the platoon leaders finished their planning because I'm pretty sure nobody wants to watch that)

This is a user-created mission in modded ARMA 2 with A.C.E. Mod (Advanced Combat Environment, a realism mod), A.C.R.E. Mod (Advanced Combat Radio Environment, a realistic radio mod and TS3 plugin), and a few other mods.


Back on topic, the trailer Wingflier linked is a bit over the top, but isn't quite as bad as some others out there. Video games aren't exactly alone in this either.
On the other hand, it's worth mentioning that it's also hard to tell if you're reading intent that isn't actually there with this sort of thing.

I think there is a difference between just depicting something and glorifying it, even for entertainment purposes. It can be rather finicky though.

[keith.lamothe]

To provide an example, here's a mostly whole mission I recorded from last weekend:

Good grief.  That was enlightening about what ARMA is, at least.  Brings new meaning to "situational awareness" for me.  Specifically, not having it.  The only time it broke that (that I could see) was right at the end when it says "Mission Succesful".  I guess for ultimate realism it could just not tell you and the message has to be passed manually by the survivors

[Echo35]

To provide an example, here's a mostly whole mission I recorded from last weekend:

Good grief.  That was enlightening about what ARMA is, at least.  Brings new meaning to "situational awareness" for me.  Specifically, not having it.  The only time it broke that (that I could see) was right at the end when it says "Mission Succesful".  I guess for ultimate realism it could just not tell you and the message has to be passed manually by the survivors

The SWAT series was one of my favorites (Even if they were kind of silly about weapons). Also a big fan of ARMA and the old tactical Tom Clancy games, before they became modern style shooters.

[keith.lamothe]

Yea, that stuff looks fascinating, I'm just not sure I could have fun in the midst of that kind of tension.  Back when I didn't need "game time" to be "relaxation time" quite so strongly, perhaps.

[Diazo]

I'm actually thinking this is somewhat mis-targeted advertising. (COH Trailer from opening post.)

While it is changing, there is still the perception that 'real' computer games (FPS, RTS, RPG, etc.) are very much played by the young male audience. (As opposed to the 'casual' game market, but that's another discussion.)

What percentage of the average gamer in that target demographic actually knows about those statistics mentioned in the trailer? If you did not, it is actually a reasonably good hook to get you to look at the game in more detail and potential interest in a game that I (personally) don't expect anything new from in terms of advancing the RTS genre.

Is this glorifying war? Erm, probably?

But I could make a decent case that AI War glorifies war because it "de-humanises war by making the enemies robots" and "encourages war by offering no other gameplay options (diplomacy, trade, alternate win conditions, etc.)".

I suppose it is a question of taste and/or culture as much as anything. Where's the studio that produced this trailer located? And are the german and russian language trailers the same?

D.

[Wingflier]

So apparently the "war glorification" tactic ended up going really, really wrong.

Though the game received decent praise from critics, the users have across the board hated the game. A 1.8 score out of 10 on Metacritic.

The major complaint was not the gameplay, or the multiplayer, or even the ridiculous amount of DLC available on release, but the fictional story which made the Russians sound worse than the Nazis. I encourage you to read some of the responses, it's pretty funny.

Here's a video, "Why Russians hate Company of Heroes 2" in which a Russian player goes into detail about why Sega made racist, unfair, and historically inaccurate campaign.

[keith.lamothe]

Maybe they should have made clearer to the writers that this was COH2, not Dawn of War 3?  Some of the things I'm heard about from the former sound more appropriate to the latter.

Of course, there was some pretty strange stuff happening on the eastern front.

[Wingflier]

Maybe they should have made clearer to the writers that this was COH2, not Dawn of War 3?  Some of the things I'm heard about from the former sound more appropriate to the latter.

Of course, there was some pretty strange stuff happening on the eastern front.

Well, when I found out (due to the video) that Russia had killed 158,000 of their own soldiers I was simply shocked. However, the author of the video explains that Russia had mobilized over 43 million solders in total, so statistically speaking, the amount of fellow soldiers shot by friendly guns was about .4%. Obviously that still doesn't make it okay, but to paint the Russians as having no regard for their own soldiers at all due to that seems a bit of a stretch. Even if it were true, why would you want to piss off a huge percentage of your playerbase?

[x4000]

My thoughts on violent shooters: there are innate violent tendencies in the human populace already. Giving people a consequence-free way to get those feelings of aggression out is a good thing. From boys rough housing to contact sports to violent video games, that seems like a good thing from certain angles.

There will always be obsessive a who cross the line, and you have your certain media types that really cross the line of decency (in my opinion anyhow), but I do think that there is an important societal role being fulfilled here.

Only sort of on topic, I know I'm late to the party.

[Shrugging Khan]

I'm of a similar opinion to x4000.

Violent games in all their forms are something entirely natural; it's really the outcome (readiness to defend oneself / one's society, venting aggression, physical fitness) that counts.

That said, I personally rather hate almost all modern military shooters with a burning passion. I can respect some of them that actually try to innovate or educate (Spec Ops, ArmA), but the whole CoD/Battlefield market is something I can't respect in the least, and I'd never play one of those.

Concerning CoH2, I never played it, and I don't know enough about the Eastern Front to judge that marketing issue. CoH1 was okay, IMHO - nothing worth wasting time on, but an above-average RTS as such.

Now, what I'd really like to see is a game about the Siege of Leningrad. Anyone know that one?

[Wingflier]

Concerning the "violent shooters cause violent people" debate...I think that ended in the '90s. No conclusive evidence could be found to show that violent games or TV shows cause people to become more violent. The only people still flying that flag are simply not concerned with the evidence from what I can tell.

Concerning CoH2, I never played it, and I don't know enough about the Eastern Front to judge that marketing issue. CoH1 was okay, IMHO - nothing worth wasting time on, but an above-average RTS as such.

That really surprises me!

CoH 1 received glowing reviews from...pretty much everybody. Then again, sometimes in cases like these it's less of a case of the game being mediocre, and more of it perhaps not being in your style.

I know games like Minecraft, Oblivion, DayZ, and more recently Skyrim, have just received ENDLESS praise from critics and players alike, but the "sandbox" genre absolutely kills me. It doesn't matter how 'refined' it is. After the first 30 minutes of Fallout 3 I was dying of boredom. I just can't stand sandbox games. They aren't bad, I just hate them.

In my opinion Company of Heroes one was a marvelous achievement for the RTS genre. Opposing Fronts (the first expansion) took this accomplishment even further. The gameplay, realistic physics, play and counter-play, "point-style" map control, innovative "Commander-Tree" mechanics and exciting campaign means that even in 2013, it is still possibly the best RTS game of all time. Sometimes I'm just baffled at how Relic was able to make 4 different factions in the same game, with such asymmetrical qualities, and unique differences/playstyles, that turned out to be balanced by some miracle. It's kind of amazing, and I challenge you to find another RTS in which all 4 factions play so completely differently in which it is still balanced, accessible, and fun.

[Shrugging Khan]

Whelp, so CoH is a successful refinement of an old formula. It still didn't do anything to the standard RTS frame that suddenly made me go "Whoah, this is actually worth my time and money!". Maybe compared to other RTS games it's brilliant, but to me, looking at it from a slightly more detached point of view, the entire genre is stuck neck deep in conventions that it can't seem to dig itself out of. I'm tired and bad at explanations either way, but maybe I can express it like this: To me, CoH is only superficially different from, say, command and conquer.

[Cyborg]

I think the bigger question is, if you can correlate a higher incidence of violence to some variable x, are you obligated to regulate it?

The answer is murky. Consider the right to bear arms, which does not actually mention guns in particular.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Reading this, it looks like that particular right is given to a militia, not a person, and it doesn't even mention guns. One might construe this to mean any arms, including missiles, mortars, cannons…anything. Why not nuclear weapons? Why not biological weapons? Obviously, it would be ridiculous to allow everyone to own nuclear missiles; why is it not ridiculous to allow automatic weapons with large clips? What makes one Arms item better than another? (answer: sponsorship)

But any mention of regulating guns is met with ridiculous, almost religious fervor against, even as automatic weapons that can go through concrete are available to purchase online and delivered to your door.

Moving to games and regulation around that, are we compelled to regulate if there is a correlation?

There is no one right answer, although I do prefer my games uncensored and original, with the knowledge that deranged people are going to be deranged. Hopefully without automatic weapons.

[keith.lamothe]

Regulation is always a tradeoff.  Personally I think the best answer to "should X be regulated?" is something basically like "if and only if it would otherwise be effectively impossible for citizens to have life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness".

Since I don't think video games are even theoretically capable of tripping that condition, I think they should be completely unregulated.

But I'm pretty crazy.  That said, I think even considerably more regulation-inclined positions would see issues with having that much of a "protect people from themselves" mentality.