Sign on Options
Theme: [Light Selected] To Dark»

My Friends

8Nov 12

A game is a game, separate from reality. The notion of games glorifying and encouraging violence is no different from the way film and music have done. Escapism is a huge part of the gaming concept, whether you actively seek it or whether you just enjoy it. But are we seeking escapism and being delivered something more sinister, are we actually being fed propaganda in modern shooters?

No, absolutely not. Dont be foolish, to say that modern military shooters are created to make us believe in an ideal could be applied to almost anything. Does shooting Covenant and Prometheans in Halo mean we are being conditioned to act negatively against an alien race? Could it all be a metaphor for extreme xenophobia? Would you believe that we are being encouraged to selflessly volunteer ourselves as the soldiers of tomorrow, unaware that death is final?

That is not to say that these shooters get away with everything though. Whilst military games are not modern day propaganda, they do play with the notion of war in an avant-garde way. There is a valid argument that bringing current conflict and war scenarios in to the games desensitises us from what is happening in our current world.

7543613.jpg

To a lot of the gaming community, the levels in Medal of Honor: Warfighter were simply a list of levels. Many claimed these levels to be boring and uninspired. Yet these were based on real situations that have happened in the past decade. Real soldiers experienced similar situations with fear, they had to use their wits to stay alive and to them this was anything but boring.

It obvious that through experiencing the levels in your home where you know you are safe can blur the feelings you get from these scenarios in a massive way. If you experienced a life threatening situation that others shrugged off because it wasnt interesting to them, would you consider that reaction normal?

The other issue at hand is; where is the line drawn? When have we gone too far? We have played through levels involving the slaughter of civilians and voluntary acts of friendly fire. Weve seen games try to play on our hearts by depicting child casualties and the effects that losing a loved one in the military can have. Is this a realistic, necessary part of the game? Or simply a ploy to make it seem more real, a detail to be added in to encourage you to want to fight on.

These aspects should be allowed in our games, like they are in our other media. My question would be if they are being added for the right reasons. It would seem that we are being sold an action game on the premise of fighting off a terrible evil, and to convince us that the evil is real, we are being shown and made to do things that are simply exploited to provoke a reaction. The death of thousands of innocent people should not be a gameplay tactic to create a reason to fight on. Especially when the consequences are never properly dealt with, the game carries on, and we forget all about the massacre that we just witnessed.

That is where my main issue lies; the loss of life is a tragic event. No matter in what scenario, yet there never seems to be any consequence to it. I understand that it is difficult to create a game where if the player dies that is it, but I feel the constant disregard for gunning down hundreds of people without it taking its toll on the soldier a little too left out.

medal-of-honor-warfighter-patch.jpg

There is nothing that really connects the consequence to the action. Real soldiers are trained to deal with the situationI know, but there are some that still struggle with the concept. Im not saying everything needs to be all Im a terrible person, Ive taken a life, but some emotional effect showing on a character or those around them should be apparent at times. It isnt often that we see soldiers feeling anything in these games. That makes it all too easy to forget that they are humans.

The question we must ask ourselves is not are videogames encouraging violence but rather are we seeing the true consequences of actions carried out in a game. That question need not only apply to military shooters either. This is an important question that needs answering, not only to see delicate situations handled correctly. But also to maybe enhance the experience we receive when we pick up these titles.

31 comments
NTenseify
NTenseify

Why do I feel bad killing a beaver in Assassin's Creed 3 yet I have no problem mowing down hordes of human guards? Are games and other media desensitizing us subconciously? Think about how society was 20 years ago. People were easier to scare with horror movies and they would be in shock if their children were playing any FPS of today. I just think it's a dangerous road we're heading down... Sure real life is seperate but maybe what we experience in electronic media is important to the mind and is further conditioning each generation without them knowing it?

rad8045
rad8045

 @NTenseify 

people are desenstized when it comes to violence games and media, But thats only because we are smart enough to know that is fiction, But you think anyone who plays a lot of video games and watches violent movies wouldn't be terrorfied if he or she found themselves in a real life conflict with extreme violence going on around them ? Of course they would be terrorfied because they would know its no game or movie and that the threat of great harm or death is real. I also have no problems mowing down human guards in Assassins creed 3, It actually distracts me too much from the missions lol but that doesn't mean I wouldn't fall to pieces if a sword fight broke out down my local pub.

NTenseify
NTenseify

 @rad8045

 Yes you are right, fear of real life sitations can not be compared to fictional ones. But my point is the guilt I feel for killing a defensless animal is not there when I kill a human because I have been subjected to it over a course of many years. There aren't many games that require you to kill bunny rabbits. Of course if you're a fan of hunting animals in real life then you would not be subjected to such guilt. So what we might be experienceing is similar to the desensitizing of a hardened soldier's mind. We would in no way be able to react as swiftly as a soldier in a real life crisis but maybe we might be more ready for it compared to a person who has not engaged in violent media their whole life?

PenguinRage
PenguinRage

 @rad8045  @NTenseify  A bit like killing the buffalo in red dead redemption. We will never entirely know if it is the last. (????)

rad8045
rad8045

 @NTenseify

 maybe thats the issue ? the fact that the animal is defence less yet the human guard is not defence less and is cable of killing you. Plus know amount of video games and movies will ever ready your mind for a real life crisis, Instinct will kick into gear and that measn one of two things you will either " fight or flight" it is the only two instincts that ring true in a crisis.

DITHRICH
DITHRICH

i got to say, most war movies and war games are actually trying to show you how ugly war is and how lucky you are you can be a part of it without the ability of getting hurt. as a military personal, unlike the fictional situations you get in video games even though they are "based on real life events" are fabricated riffraff, when someone is down they might simply call him as "Down" and leave him which is not what happening in reality, you dont rush guns blazing and you dont go to a person in order to "melee" him, that is usually a last resort act of being surprised in close encounters  that you cant maneuver your gun in time. the main concept in military shooter is being in your team, outnumbered and out gunned  with no back up or the usual arguing with command about the availability of back up which happens more often then you think. but the authentication of the game in such conditions just turns you into a bullet chewing juggernaut that has a fixed reload rate and style of each gun, knowing exactly how many rounds he has in a freshly picked up weapon and how to operate it , no panic mechanics and no pressure...the ultimate cool bloke, basically Kristen Stewart in an action movie although some characters take it to an all new level with the idea of not talking. i will be real with you, it is fun pretending to be the character and the idea of not talking gives you a more free feeling, in real life ops their isn't a quiet guy, everyone must confirm each order, if not by radio then by hand signals, noise of some sort like  Morse code or light signals which are also Morse code. although some games tend to over do voice acting of "your" character but that doesn't belittle the need of words in combat situations.

rad8045
rad8045 like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

personally i don't  need a video game to teach me whats right from from and that war is in humane and has live long consequences, Any mature gamer who has been to school and had basic education would know that a video game war game is far from realistic and would know that a real life experience like that would leave them shell shocked. the public these days relys to much on the media these days to guide them through life and take music, movies and video games way to seriously.

danny_dm_moore
danny_dm_moore

Good article, it is something that more developers need to look into. However, games are still entertainment for the most part. Games can be entertainment, art, documentaries, basically anything you want, but it is still an entrainment business that is in its formative years.

 

You will simply never get every game looking to show the emotional impact of the deaths contained in it. There will be some games that do something different and show that, but consumers want to feel like a bad ass action movie star and, as unfortunate as it is, that is where the money is. That is not to say that developers shouldn't push the envelope.  

-INKling-
-INKling-

I see it from a slightly different perspective in that it's OK to enjoy violence on the screen (game or film). Unless it's handled very carefully then an attempt at trying to get us to care about the deaths comes across as pointless or melodramatic (Dom in Gears 2 for example). Austin Powers had it right with their 'nobody thinks about the henchman' joke.

 

I am not saying that the effect of war shouldn't be considered but it needs to sensitive and appropriate.

Morphine_OD
Morphine_OD

 @-INKling- oh, c'mon, kids play violent games every day on the streets. They play tag for example - a hunter and prey simulator. Don't you think it should be treated carefully? Or how about Cowboys and Indians? What about American Football or Boxing? Pretty violent sports y'know. How is it nobody fears that boxing or football will make your kid into a butcher?

aniforprez
aniforprez like.author.displayName 1 Like

 @Morphine_OD  @-INKling- you're a real moron and this is one hell of a moronic comment. they're sport. they don't advocate intentional harm for harm's sake. it's competition and there's a winner who is lauded for his training and efforts. if you assume war is directly proportional to boxing or football then you're a deriliously misguided person

Coco_pierrot
Coco_pierrot

 @aniforprez  

 I fail to see how comparing cumputer games to sports is moronic ... many sport are violent ... and yes they do violent action on purpse ... And now that they are creating Esport where you see Star Craft II, Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat, COD ... well ... you beat the crap of your opponent to win ... it isn't worst or better than a real sport where you can suffer from cerebral concussion. It is violence ... not as extrem as taking the live of someone else but still it is violence.

aniforprez
aniforprez

"To a lot of the gaming community, the levels in Medal of Honor: Warfighter were simply a list of levels. Many claimed these levels to be boring and uninspired. Yet these were based on real situations that have happened in the past decade."

 

This statement is false and ridiculous. To say that war is a linear, action-fuelled, straight-and-narrow experience is degrading and base. War is not full of explosions, bullet-sponges and QTEs. War is a very real and scary place. It is also lonely, quiet, disturbing and sometimes boring. If games like Medal of Honor want to show the "authentic" side of war, they would have to show boring sequences of guarding tanks with absolutely no action. They would have to show long and tiring sniper sequences with them waiting hours for any signs of targets. But the industry doesn't want that. They want explosions, bullets and faceless enemies.

 

Am I calling for the death of MMSs? Hell No! They are fun and provide some decent killing action in the comfort of your living room as an escape from real life. That is what entertainment games are for. But when a game advertises itself as an "authentic" experience and delivers a CoD style campaing with even less realism (if that's even possible)? This crosses the line and dives into disrespect and unprofessionalism.

VampireLord123
VampireLord123

This topic is subjective to every person and how they see their game. To some is just another game, and other it represents sentimental value. If you get too involve in the story, you might care about the choices of the main character and how affects the world that surrounds them. For example, one game that really got to me was LA Noire, *Spoilers* the main character goes through a rough time in the last part of the game, at this moment you know that something is terrible wrong with him, but it did not feel right. He made a mistake but you realize that he was not able to move on from what he did. It made me anxious to know if he was going to redeem himself, somehow he did but no the way i expected. It really affect me because through the whole game he is seeing as a hero, and then you find out that he is not so heroic after all. 

 

What you are mentioning depends on a person perspective, some gamers just play games, others get involved with the game.

Morphine_OD
Morphine_OD

Games are just a medium. You can find tons of books that deal with life-loss like nothing happened. The point that you can interact with the game doesn't work, because you can interact with your toys also. You can play cowboys and indians with your friends and disregard the true tragic nature of the events that gave us the game.

 

Whenever you pick up a stick, make noises like you're shooting someone and he falls down with a theatrical scream, you know that IT'S NOT REAL. And it's not supposed to be. And you're not supposed to even think about it, because shooting a stick or a paintball rifle or an airsoft one is NOTHING like shooting a real gun in a real gunfight.

 

And it will never be.

 

Accept games as something they are, not as something you imagine them to be. Games are entertainment. Just like books. Just like airsoft battles. Just like Cowboys and Idians.

aniforprez
aniforprez

 @Morphine_OD you seem to be taking a very simplistic view of gaming. you cannot relegate toys and movies and gaming and push them into the shelf of entertainment. all these are ART and art though subjective, has boundaries and acceptable standards and morals. we cannot simply say "oh it's just entertainment" and think it doesn't affect us. people held the same view of movies and theatre when they first began and now they are venerated art forms. even toys hold artistic significance. they are not just a medium. they have the potential to BE the message. devs, producers and writers have to be mature and start treating it like an art, not chattle to be sold.

Morphine_OD
Morphine_OD

 @aniforprez  Books, movies and certain toys are also ART. And if someone plays beautifully in Cowboys and Indians, his performance is also called an Art by those who value Cowboys and Indians.

 

Art is nothing more than a subjective perception of some objects of entertainment. You can call Mona Lisa an art, I call it a fancy painting. You call War and Peace an art, I call it a war epic.

 

So yeah, you can call whatever an art, but whatever piece you see, it was done for a sole purpose - to ENTERTAIN the viewer. 

Coco_pierrot
Coco_pierrot

 @aniforprez

I see ... I'm not an elitist. As a musician and accountant/marketing I have an opinion of what is art and what is just a consummable product with a good marketing spin.

 

So let's agree to disagree

aniforprez
aniforprez

 @Coco_pierrot of course what lady gaga does or cod is most obviously art. you seem to be confusing good art with art itself. art is an extremely broad view but anything that is created with a vision, some goals as to the end result and created with some effort is art. it can be as great as ar rahman's music or as dumb as katy perry's. it is still art because there are people who appreciate it. you cannot label what YOU consider art as art itself. other people exist so don't be such an elitist snob. nothing needs to be art to be enjoyed but understand what art is in the first place. BUT THAT WAS NEVER THE FUCKING POINT.

 

the point of this article was how something like war was dealt with. i'm saying as a form of art, games have to be sensitive in how they deal with such a topic. however entertaining, games, if going for an authentic experince like MoH was advertising, they need to be better and pay more respect to their sources.

Coco_pierrot
Coco_pierrot

 @aniforprez

 Obviously what I consider Art isn't the same thing as you because you obviously consider Lady Gaga Art ... and would also consider COD art ... to me both are just cash-in.

 

If you want to know what I consider Art go check John Cage and Salvador Dalì.

 

So it isn't bad that everything else in this days and age are just here for enterteining purpose, we need to be enterteined !!! But it doesn't mean that everything must be considered art to be enjoyed.

 

Also ... insulting someone over the internet is really easy and just show that you are closed minded and refuse to have an intelligent conversation.

aniforprez
aniforprez

 @Morphine_OD  @Coco_pierrot you moron, you don't seem to get the point that subjective or not, there's a line where what you're doing is just insensitive.

aniforprez
aniforprez

 @Coco_pierrot  dealing with a hard topic isn't ALWAYS art and no it isn't sensationalisation.

 

so according to you if anything makes money and uses a subject just for the sake of art and ZERO profit, very VERY few things in this world would be considered art at all. art doesn't need to be non-profit you dolt. art is creation. creation is art. creation can be anything even if it revelations 2012 or halo 4 because it was created with goals and a vision in mind.

Coco_pierrot
Coco_pierrot

 @Morphine_OD  @aniforprez

 To me, there is entertain and there is Art ... Art can be entertaining but entertainment can't be Art.

 

few people on each medium considered Art still do Art for the sake of Art ... they all do it for money and thus they have to appeal to the lowest common denominator ... so they distill their product to appeal. Art doesn't stupid himself to appeal ... people have to step up their knowledge to really appreciate it. It isn't the case with Video Games, it isn't the case with music, it isn't the case with movie nor it is with books.

 

Speaking or dealing with hard topic isn't Art. It is just sensitization of the topic and they use a medium to do it ... be it music, book, movie or video game.

Morphine_OD
Morphine_OD

 @aniforprez you're delusional. You make it as only games deal with it in insensitive reason, while there are movies and books that deal with it just as insensitively.

aniforprez
aniforprez

 @Morphine_OD you are simplifying the issue and from all your comments you seem to be an advocate of the fact that their "sole purpose - to ENTERTAIN the viewer" fixes everything. it doesn't. there's a line which decides if what you're doing is acceptable or insensitive. entertainment cannot overstep the bounds of societal decency or virtue. you "deal" with sensitive issues, you better goddamn deal with it properly or you'll get shitloads of flak. this game may be selling well but people have derided this for how stupidly it deals with war. this is supposed to be an "authentic experience". does this deliver? on the contrary it belittles the whole concept of soldiers fighting a war. so don't give your 2-bit explanation and assume it solves everything

Coco_pierrot
Coco_pierrot

I don,t know if it is that much important to have an "experiance" and be realistic and have real consequences of our actions ... I mean it is a game ... when I was young, a game was just that a game ... you didn't experience it, you play it ... quite different from what it is nowaday in the shooter scene.

 

I play a game to have fun and escape reality for a few min/hours not to feel bad for someone that I shoot in the head because now his wife is alone with 3 kids that miss their dad.

 

I did a genocide once in Fallout3, I killed every human in the game to have the trophy for the number of human killed ... of course the game didn,t allow me to murder the kids ( which would have helped me to get the trophy ). I didn't feel bad. It is only a game. In real life it is another story.

 

If they don't put any sensitive to somewhat give the feeling what you do is right and also to make a story not just go out in a world and shoot everything that as the misfortune to move. I mean ... if the princess wasn,t kidnapped in every Super Mario Game ... why botter going through all of it ?

 

If in Heavy Rain Sean wasn't kidnapped ... Ethan wouldn't do all those very extrem challenge for fun ... a game with Ethan just depressing because he lost on of his child ... would have been boring and not a captivating story.

 

So in all ... a game is a game and it shouldn't be exacly like real life and it is ok , of course some game is inspired by real life event but still, it is more of a fantasy and should stay one.

Conversation powered by Livefyre