military history,games and movies....
polycounter lvl 18
howdy guys
I figured this disscusion warrents its own thread and I don't want to be seen causing a stir in the Brothers in Arms thread and end up getting a virtural headbutt off of sumguy
...or Daz for taht matter for turning it into is forcasted debate ....its still a very intresting point though.
heres a post by Cthogu in the described thread.
[ QUOTE ]
Does anyone see it as kind of odd that experiences these people (WW2 vets or really any vet) went through, and would probably never ever want to repeat sells so well as a entertainment experience? I wonder how they feel about people paying 50 dollars to see their friends explode infront of them and to be placed in situations where you have to kill another person inorder to survive. It's not just videogames either...there's a whole market of tabletop WW2 wargames and have been since the late 70s or early 80s. I play all these games and have always loved them, it's just recently started to strike me as wierd.
[/ QUOTE ]
Heres daz's reply to Cathogu's point
[ QUOTE ]
Well, the point that you bring up Cthouga I've certainly thought about.
I've often had a twang of guilt for playing a game that relives hellish events that actually took place. But whats worse? A game like this that attemps to depict it as realistically as possible? ( there is swearing, fear shown by the men and gore ) Or a game like Battlefield 1942 that turns it into something almost comical? Oh wait, I play that game too .
But If you start to wonder If we have the right to depict War in the hope of providing entertainment ( something that has been happening ever since War itself has been around. Film, theatre, books, wargames, boardgames etc etc ) then where do you draw the line? Many videogames depict deaths that actually occured. Do we question the ethics of 'Rome: Total War' depicting bloody battles of men hacking each other apart? Nope, because it was so long ago ( but perhaps games that depict much older war are more acceptable since there aren't any vets around? ). The thing is, I personally happen to have an interest in WW2 as a subject matter. I grew up being obsessed with it, making model kits and playing with soldiers as many boys do. So that's why it appeals. And it's the same reason I own the 'Band Of Brothers' DVD box set. ( well that and the fact that its the best thing ever made for TV ) But I think I can play this videogame or watch a movie and see it purely for what it is, without losing any respect that I have for men that lived and died through it, nor for a moment thinking that in playing the game I'm gaining some understanding of what it was really like. But I don't know. This could end up turning into a huge debate
[/ QUOTE ]
I see where your thoughts are and I also occasionally think the same thing,however I feel if we had a culture where none of these kind of games existed we would acturally be very boring and "dumb" people...if thats the right way of putting it.
I mean I also have a very keen intrest in world war 2 and grew up with that intrest,it runs in the family,my dad has very keen intrest in it,my grandad flew a Hurricain during the battle of Britain days and as I kid i also used to play with airfix models pretend they would shoot each other down,some days even with my grandad looking over me (who exsperienced getting shot down and wounded and having to bail out over the english channel of his burning aircraft).
Eventurally before he died he showed me and my dad his war diaries which he had kept locked up and I found really it really facinating.
So now we zip forward afew years to now,I personally think the whole airfix,model,reinactments and imaginative creativity that daz,myself and im sure some of you other guys here had are being lost in the technology of this day and age as I bet more people play computers at the age of 10 than airfix models and I think this is the reason I feel guilty about playing these games...
people that don't understand what happened in history are being told through the scriptures of a game or movie,theres not enough historically accurate information shipped with games and especially hollywood movies are being distorted to fit with "what the public want"..rather than "what acturally happened"
Back in the day (early 1990s) games would be shipped with 200page manuels,about half of which was about actural events and historican facts,so much so my dad acturally went through a period when he bought games just for the manuals as they were so straight to the point and informative,yet cheaper than most hard back WW2 based books.Id feel less guilty then if games were shipped with more information avalible like this.
Though I got to dissagree with you on "Rome:total War" Daz,I acturally found that an intresting and informative game to play so never had a "guilt" factor while doing so,this is becuase there was alot of information avalible while playing,each unit had a quite detailed description what it was used for historically as well as its details for the gameplay,same goes for the buildings and the little extras like the research by the greeks,like the water pump and star systems etc was also very intresting...oviously how accurate this information is does raise questions in itself but the fact its in there atool is a possitive plus for me.
The major culprit for me however is films based on WW2 and recent events.
A classic example which gets on my tits is "pearl Harbor",I mean take "Tora tora Tora" for example,im not sure when it was made but its an epic film based on exstensive reserach on both sides of the pacific ocean,is presented as a kind of documentary-movie...if you see the trailer you shall know what I mean,it goes along way to ask question many americans asked at the time "why did pearl harbor happen?". Ok so if my dad wasn't intrested in WW2 i doubt I would have seen this movie.
So then we have the modern "epic" version straight out of Hollywood,the story is based on a bloody love trainagle that proberly never existed,the pilots Ben Afleck and the other bloke played were depicted as fearless pilots in that they were the ones to get to the 2 planes at a very remote airfeild and were seen to take out several Jap aircraft in a very unrealistic aireal battle and survive....where as historically there is evidence 2 pilots got off the ground from a remote part of the island shot down 1 or 2 aircraft and then there is no evidence that they survive or not so is a total distortion of the truth,yet this is what many people are going to see and therefore belive acturally happened....
Other movies Like "Black Hawk Down" are also distorted in the same way,on the special edition DVD you can get commentary with 2 of the vets that acturally were in modigishu,were fighting on the streets,who were watching there comrads die...and there was a whole section added holywood style where they claim "there is no evidence that ever happened" talking about the 2 or 3 soldiers that got seperated from there groups...and..."The UN would never leave troops behind to run like that,pure hollywood" refering to the very end scenes in what otherwise is a great movie.
For historical accuracy and acclaim of both vets and movie goeers "saving private ryan" is the best recent movie depicting modern wartime events in my honest opinion as it shows,plenty of emotion,the torture of war and all the blood and grit and genral shit that goes with it.
Again sorry Daz for starting this up,just I didn't wanna hi-jack the BIA thraed for such a long post which I feel quite strongly about.
john
I figured this disscusion warrents its own thread and I don't want to be seen causing a stir in the Brothers in Arms thread and end up getting a virtural headbutt off of sumguy
...or Daz for taht matter for turning it into is forcasted debate ....its still a very intresting point though.heres a post by Cthogu in the described thread.
[ QUOTE ]
Does anyone see it as kind of odd that experiences these people (WW2 vets or really any vet) went through, and would probably never ever want to repeat sells so well as a entertainment experience? I wonder how they feel about people paying 50 dollars to see their friends explode infront of them and to be placed in situations where you have to kill another person inorder to survive. It's not just videogames either...there's a whole market of tabletop WW2 wargames and have been since the late 70s or early 80s. I play all these games and have always loved them, it's just recently started to strike me as wierd.
[/ QUOTE ]
Heres daz's reply to Cathogu's point
[ QUOTE ]
Well, the point that you bring up Cthouga I've certainly thought about.
I've often had a twang of guilt for playing a game that relives hellish events that actually took place. But whats worse? A game like this that attemps to depict it as realistically as possible? ( there is swearing, fear shown by the men and gore ) Or a game like Battlefield 1942 that turns it into something almost comical? Oh wait, I play that game too .
But If you start to wonder If we have the right to depict War in the hope of providing entertainment ( something that has been happening ever since War itself has been around. Film, theatre, books, wargames, boardgames etc etc ) then where do you draw the line? Many videogames depict deaths that actually occured. Do we question the ethics of 'Rome: Total War' depicting bloody battles of men hacking each other apart? Nope, because it was so long ago ( but perhaps games that depict much older war are more acceptable since there aren't any vets around? ). The thing is, I personally happen to have an interest in WW2 as a subject matter. I grew up being obsessed with it, making model kits and playing with soldiers as many boys do. So that's why it appeals. And it's the same reason I own the 'Band Of Brothers' DVD box set. ( well that and the fact that its the best thing ever made for TV ) But I think I can play this videogame or watch a movie and see it purely for what it is, without losing any respect that I have for men that lived and died through it, nor for a moment thinking that in playing the game I'm gaining some understanding of what it was really like. But I don't know. This could end up turning into a huge debate
[/ QUOTE ]
I see where your thoughts are and I also occasionally think the same thing,however I feel if we had a culture where none of these kind of games existed we would acturally be very boring and "dumb" people...if thats the right way of putting it.
I mean I also have a very keen intrest in world war 2 and grew up with that intrest,it runs in the family,my dad has very keen intrest in it,my grandad flew a Hurricain during the battle of Britain days and as I kid i also used to play with airfix models pretend they would shoot each other down,some days even with my grandad looking over me (who exsperienced getting shot down and wounded and having to bail out over the english channel of his burning aircraft).
Eventurally before he died he showed me and my dad his war diaries which he had kept locked up and I found really it really facinating.
So now we zip forward afew years to now,I personally think the whole airfix,model,reinactments and imaginative creativity that daz,myself and im sure some of you other guys here had are being lost in the technology of this day and age as I bet more people play computers at the age of 10 than airfix models and I think this is the reason I feel guilty about playing these games...
people that don't understand what happened in history are being told through the scriptures of a game or movie,theres not enough historically accurate information shipped with games and especially hollywood movies are being distorted to fit with "what the public want"..rather than "what acturally happened"
Back in the day (early 1990s) games would be shipped with 200page manuels,about half of which was about actural events and historican facts,so much so my dad acturally went through a period when he bought games just for the manuals as they were so straight to the point and informative,yet cheaper than most hard back WW2 based books.Id feel less guilty then if games were shipped with more information avalible like this.
Though I got to dissagree with you on "Rome:total War" Daz,I acturally found that an intresting and informative game to play so never had a "guilt" factor while doing so,this is becuase there was alot of information avalible while playing,each unit had a quite detailed description what it was used for historically as well as its details for the gameplay,same goes for the buildings and the little extras like the research by the greeks,like the water pump and star systems etc was also very intresting...oviously how accurate this information is does raise questions in itself but the fact its in there atool is a possitive plus for me.
The major culprit for me however is films based on WW2 and recent events.
A classic example which gets on my tits is "pearl Harbor",I mean take "Tora tora Tora" for example,im not sure when it was made but its an epic film based on exstensive reserach on both sides of the pacific ocean,is presented as a kind of documentary-movie...if you see the trailer you shall know what I mean,it goes along way to ask question many americans asked at the time "why did pearl harbor happen?". Ok so if my dad wasn't intrested in WW2 i doubt I would have seen this movie.
So then we have the modern "epic" version straight out of Hollywood,the story is based on a bloody love trainagle that proberly never existed,the pilots Ben Afleck and the other bloke played were depicted as fearless pilots in that they were the ones to get to the 2 planes at a very remote airfeild and were seen to take out several Jap aircraft in a very unrealistic aireal battle and survive....where as historically there is evidence 2 pilots got off the ground from a remote part of the island shot down 1 or 2 aircraft and then there is no evidence that they survive or not so is a total distortion of the truth,yet this is what many people are going to see and therefore belive acturally happened....
Other movies Like "Black Hawk Down" are also distorted in the same way,on the special edition DVD you can get commentary with 2 of the vets that acturally were in modigishu,were fighting on the streets,who were watching there comrads die...and there was a whole section added holywood style where they claim "there is no evidence that ever happened" talking about the 2 or 3 soldiers that got seperated from there groups...and..."The UN would never leave troops behind to run like that,pure hollywood" refering to the very end scenes in what otherwise is a great movie.
For historical accuracy and acclaim of both vets and movie goeers "saving private ryan" is the best recent movie depicting modern wartime events in my honest opinion as it shows,plenty of emotion,the torture of war and all the blood and grit and genral shit that goes with it.
Again sorry Daz for starting this up,just I didn't wanna hi-jack the BIA thraed for such a long post which I feel quite strongly about.
john
Replies
Just to be clear, I have nothing against the excellent 'Rome:Total War' either ethically or otherwise. I was merely citing it as an example of a game that depicts War. Albeit War from a very long time ago. My point being in response to Cthogua, that If it isn't approproate to depict War from more ( comparitively ) recent times, then what's the cut off point to where it is acceptable?
Back on topic, I don't think making movies/games about recent wars is a bad thing generally, but most singleplayer games don't even try to be not biased or historical acurate.
The only good recent Vietnam game was "Vietcong" for example, but even that one could have been much better (in the things mentioned above).
Multiplayer games on the other hand, are pretty much un biased, since they haven't really got any story. Personally I prefer realistic "war simulations" like RedOrchestra (it is still fun though
To put it in a nutshell, yes it is possible to do "good" WW2 games (that are still fun), but sadly most of them arn't really good, since they give the player a wrong perspective of the conflict (but it could be worse).
Historical wars are easier in that aspect, since they can much more easily done historically acurate.
i think what most WWII games do, even ones like BF 1942, is pay homage to the significance of the events in question. sure, we're making a game out of it (for it to be realistic would be for it to most certainly not be 'fun'), but the choice of subject matter belies a certain reverence and respect.
of course the BF 1942 version of Wake Island is completely unlike what actually occured there... when gamers hear 'Wake Island' many will remember the many fond hours of playing time there, starting with the multiplayer demo. whereas veterans of WWII hear 'Wake Island' they cringe. but the sad fact is that we're losing more and more WWII vets every year; pretty soon we won't have any left. we keep making these games not only because they're fun but because of the historical significance of the original events--how many gamers would have never even heard of Wake Island if not for the game? they know the game isn't accurate.
but for every player that just plays the game for what it is and nothing more, there are other players who catch hold of that slight bit of truth present (there is indeed a Wake island and a fierce battle was fought there) and runs with it. WWII are hardly ever educational, but i think they stimulate interest which leads to education. they love the game so much, they decide that maybe they'll actually learn more about what really happen.
WWII is inexhaustible cultural memory. every man and woman involved in that unbelievable war has a story to tell, and as such (even though some stories get repeated more than others) there will always be more stories to tell in every medium, including games and movies. some do a better job than others, and there are of course bad games and movies that do very little for that memory (Pearl Harbor), but overall i think it is a very positive process.
i think of my own experience of playing Battlefield Vietnam: again, it's anything but historically accurate, but even the little interstitial blurbs about this or that about the war while the level is loading i really enjoyed.
and even though (as much as we'd like to believe) American soldiers didn't go flying and driving everywhere with the radio blasting, i really have to give thanks to EA for licensing the music that they did. because it is era-appropriate music that was thankfully re-contextualized thanks to that game. what i mean is that many of those great songs that they licensed long fallen prey to that pop culture netherworld of being used in commercials and the like, which is rarely respectful of a good old song. so sure, Battlefield Vietnam isn't historical, nor is it best balanced game, but just like it's predecessor it provides a 'living' way of rekindling interest in a culturally and historically significant event.
the best way to get people interested in history is for it to matter to them. i think that's what these games (at their best) help do.
(oh, amd as a moderator i would like to encourage exactly this--if a discussion outgrows a thread, by all means you should indeed start a new thread. that's what the post button is for
one thing that really had an impact on me was when i accidentally shot a civilian. the black hawk had dropped my squad off and we had to hoof it thru a village to these garages that were our objective, and as we were running towards the first buildings, these civilians came out and started yelling at us to get out and leave em alone and one threw a stone at me, i took some damage, and thought for a second it was a bullet hit, and when i saw this guy cocking his arm in my direction, i thought 'GRENADE!' and shot him, registering only as i fired that the crosshairs had flashed up the red 'no target' symbol. i then saw how easily a soldier, in a high pressure situation like that, could easily think someone had shot at them or was about to throw a grenade and then shoot an innocent person.
Daz:- Rome:Total war in my opinion has it right,historically for example they say if you were hit in the head by a stone or small rock from an onerger it would take your head clean off.....and with Rome's very detailed engine im sure this kind of detail could potentially be possible,but creative assembly hasn't chosen to add it,instead when a group is it by an oneger they fly around in a comical fashion,also note how Rome doesn't have blood...I think its debatable if adding a blood map to dead units would help the inpact factor at the end,I mean I still find my self dazing over battlesfeilds where four armies of clashed and there all of 100 men leaved standing and thinking "I lost 2000 men,they lost 2500 men for what? this poxy little village that im now gonna get all of 100 denarii from?".wether having blood would ad dto taht I doubt it,but no doubt there is a mod somewhere that adds blood.
JKMakowka:- you bring up an intresting argument in itself,by mentioning vietcong.
personally im not sure how id feel about watching highly detailed "people" burn after a napalm strike that I was oblished to call in myself....no no im not being honest here,id be like..."Yeah burn bitches" before unloading my M16 into the undergrowth..and waiting for the mission complete screen to arise and onto the next mission. Why would I be like this?? becuase i need to in order to progress in the game.
Vietnam was a damn bad war from Both sides and I hope games don't end up with the above scenario...but then again there is part of me that would acturally be quite curious to play such a horrific reconstruction of an horrific historical event so to be honest im kind very split about how far you can take the vietnam war as it was particularly bad.also goes without saying if a developer did take a vietnam based game to these exstremes I would exspect some historical info,either incorporated into the game or through a manural or book of some sort.
Guess:-Bf1942 I agree totally with your points,but I still feel there should be some historical info to go with,simply becase the maps are very very very loosly based on WW2 events and its gnerally based on WW2.
Im not talking huge amount of detail becuase most people will be playing BF1942 for the comedy,fun,elements of it but for example a few lines incorporated on the debreif screens somehow...like for the Starlingrad map on the debreif screen somewhere it could say soemthing like:-
"Historically:- starlingrad was one of the bloodist and most infamous battles of World war 2,Millions of soldiers and civilians died as the German tank armies laid seige to the city while the Russians fought for every square inch in house-to-house street fighting,Eventurally the Russian Army broke out and it was the first major,yet bloody victory for the Allies on the eastern Front"
It could balance out the fun element we get from such games...like when ya goto a stripclub and ya have a girlfriend at home,go to stripclub-have your entertainment- then ya think *what if one of my girls mates saw me" ...same kinda concept but with games,it makes you think.
I feel games that are specifically based an historical events should have much more factural info about those events,I mean if people were not intrested in what the game was about why would they buy it??
Also your point about wake island is valid Gauss and do Agree with it,but i just don't feel its enough to say ther is an island somewhere in the world called wake..ther ewas a battle during WW2 there.
I mean here in the UK everytime theres a significant historical event,normally a battle or soemthing todo with the monarchy the newspapers wil lgo out and survey 11-16 year olds and ask them questions about the event in question.
like a couple of years ago they did a survey about the Normandy Invasion and it was unbelivable the lack of knowledge about one of the most significant and recent historical events in history.
Bottom of the barrel stuff like "what year did the normandy Invasion take place?" only 3 in 10 got it right and afew of the others thoguht it was in the 17th or 18th century,it was trully a joke.
I just feel if this is the case,the plea's of the remaining vets that we can't forget them and there actions are going unheard and theres soemthing clearly wrong somewhre along the line.
john
One of my friends, Doug, is a combat veteran, and still an avid gamer. He hacked together a laptop out of parts, when he was in the 101 ABN, to play games on (He was a gamer first), because the 101 was on 30 minute alert so often, he could not get off base, and developed a nice addiction to games. His preference for games, is RTS, and flight sims, but FPS games don't interest him all that much as he finds them limited (No belly crawl in UT), and he likes turn based wargames. Now he's looking at a secondary career in game design.
Scott
I acturally used to be part of a online squad known as the 78th Virtural fighetr group(a dedication to the real life 78th fighter group during WW2,had contact with actural vets from WW2 and was linked as part of the Duxford memorial site),that played flightsims online....several of the members there are in some form of military service (aircraft technicians/maintanance,soldiers, pilots etc)....though unfortunatily ive lost contact with quite afew of them guys so I can't drop them aline and link to this thread and see what there opinion acturally is.
However just afew days I go since the 78th VFG split afew years ago a couple of sub squads have been formed and most of the founding members of the 78thVFG are part of this squad and I dropped them a line to see how they are all getting on etc....before being informed that one of my former online wingmen is currently serving on the front line in Iraq.
id be intrested to know how he see's computer games,especially with war fresh on his mind.
John
Scott