How do you feel about?

[babystinky]

Playing video Game's that have maps like Stalingrad or stuff from Vietnam?
OR anything that has *specific* battles?

In the case of Stalingrad knowing that so many people died in very brutal circumstane's only to have years later people playing shooting games based on the battles for entertainment?

I remember watching a program on the battle of Stalingrad and just seeing some of the old clips was very disturbing.

I know the same can be said about many things but Video Games have a certain realism.

I love Shooters but I usually stay away from stuff that has *specific* battles.

How do you feel?

2 questions.

How do you feel about playing the games(maps) as such,

How would you feel if you were in that bloody battle and later it was made into something that people enjoyed for *fun*?

[Priceless_Dabson!~]

Love Wolfestein

Is it War or is it just fun ??

I say fun >> For you can regenerate after being killed !!! In life you cannot!~

[scottg26]

its in a movie as well...thats entertainment...

[opus512]

I like historical stuff. Depends on how you view it, I just view it as history. I think the games out about Iraq and Sept. 11th are a little pushy though, that's pretty fresh still. How about Civil War games? How far back do you go?

[Indolentron]

i view call of duty as more of an experience than as woo woo im shootin germans!

[Lollan]

I like historical stuff. Depends on how you view it, I just view it as history. I think the games out about Iraq and Sept. 11th are a little pushy though, that's pretty fresh still. How about Civil War games? How far back do you go?


:ygtr:

You do bring up a good point tho Mr(Mrs?). BabyStinky....

[1badjedi]

war as entertainment is fun. no matter whether it's based on actual events or not. actually since it's a game there's really no need to face a moral dilemma since it's not real and not meant to be. and the whole sticking to the facts type stuff ya see in games is just a gimmick. if they did that there would have been more dead guys on the beach during the MOH D-Day level and you'd have prolly saw some american soldiers with their balls in their mouths in Vietcong. so yeah they play close to the story but leave out a lot of the facts to make it an entertaining game without the morbid reality getting in the way.

actually it's kinda fun to play wargames that pretend to stick to the facts and play out as it really did. games that let you play as the axis or the south from civil war days gives you an opportunity to play whatif.

btw speaking of actual battles i had some of my best times gaming when i played aces high which is a flight sim. i was part of a squadron that flew virtual reenactments of actual pacific engagements trying to be exact down to the last plane and man that was more fun than i can articulate. were we doing justice to the men who fought and died in those engagements? prolly not but that wasnt our objective. the only objective is to have fun cuz it's only a game :)

[1badjedi]

oh btw, this game is being hyped as very controversial already so hopefully it's a good game and not jes one with a bunch of crap thrown in to make it shocking.

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/shellshocknam67/preview_6093358.html

http://www.shellshockgame.com/

[opus512]

One thing that Guerilla really wants to do is to capture the atmosphere and the almost schizophrenic nature of the Vietnam War. One moment you'll be enjoying a peaceful walk in the country, and the next moment all hell breaks lose as your enemies ambush you.

Gee, sounds like possibily *any* war to me, not jus Vietnam :P

And what's the big deal about 'capturing the realism' of war in a game? I want a game, not a simulation. Besides, it takes away from the reality of war, IMO, to claim anything short of actual war is representative of what it's all about.

[Plaster]

Personally, I'm appauled at all of the WW2 games. Not because they might offencd veterans. I'm appauled that they're still being released. MAKE SOMETHING NEW!!!

[Ailuros]

Games need more sex :bigthumb:

[1badjedi]

Personally, I'm appauled at all of the WW2 games. Not because they might offencd veterans. I'm appauled that they're still being released. MAKE SOMETHING NEW!!!



the thing is WW2 was something the good guys won so it has a glamour all it's own. and if people play it they will make it ;)


btw appalled has no U :D

[Ailuros]

I thought I'd never see the day that jedi would turn into a spelling nazi.... :naughty:

Uhmmm...errrrrrrrrrr.......

MAKE LOVE, NOT WAR :headbang:

[opus512]

I thought I'd never see the day that jedi would turn into a spelling nazi.... :naughty:

Uhmmm...errrrrrrrrrr.......

MAKE LOVE, NOT WAR :headbang:
Only because it was Plaster :D :lol:

[Plaster]

Only because it was Plaster :D :lol:

You know it.
:bigthumb:

[1badjedi]

:lol:


i couldnt pass the op since i dont get em much ;)

[DUKE HARDKNOCK]

I think it's irrelevant whether a game simulates an actual historical event or something entirely fictitious. In both instances you get to kill, usually without having any alternative method of overcoming an obstacle/finishing the game. If you're going to question the morality of games, don't question whether making a game out of a specific war is moral, but whether making a game out of wanton killing is moral. And think hard before you say "it's moral because it's not real", because would you say the same about a porn simulator? A rape simulator? An abortion simulator? A genocide simulator (though it could be argued any 4X game already does this)? Unless you believe any type of game is perfectly fine because it does not take place in reality, that would clearly be a poor argument.

[1badjedi]

ok the not "real" part does not apply to all games and the types of games you mention as example would never be a "game" per se anyway. i mean the lure of war is the tactics involved. you can compare it to chess so in essence you can make a game of it. those other subjects you mentioned cannot be compared to any game. we all played cowboys and indians as kids or had GI JOE fun but i'm sure none of us ever tried raping the neighbors daughter or giving her an abortion. thats no game i wanna play.

[Ailuros]

I think it's irrelevant whether a game simulates an actual historical event or something entirely fictitious. In both instances you get to kill, usually without having any alternative method of overcoming an obstacle/finishing the game. If you're going to question the morality of games, don't question whether making a game out of a specific war is moral, but whether making a game out of wanton killing is moral. And think hard before you say "it's moral because it's not real", because would you say the same about a porn simulator? A rape simulator? An abortion simulator? A genocide simulator (though it could be argued any 4X game already does this)? Unless you believe any type of game is perfectly fine because it does not take place in reality, that would clearly be a poor argument.

Porn simulator for me please and screw ethics :bigthumb:

[DUKE HARDKNOCK]

ok the not "real" part does not apply to all games and the types of games you mention as example would never be a "game" per se anyway.
Although I'd beg to differ considering what we've seen already, especially with the advent of Flash games (porn and rape games exist already, all-out genocide sims aren't around to my knowledge yet but who knows what goes on underground - and civ games are pretty good substitutes - and I wouldn't be surprised if some type of abortion game will eventually come from Japan), you prove my point by saying that the "real" part does not apply to all games. Simulation is okay, but only under certain circumstances. Therefore, the fact that it a game is simulated no longer provides a valid argument to defend one's opinion that there's nothing wrong with war sims, since evidently this does not always apply. And the reason for that is that we find the content of certain games to be offensive, tasteless, immoral and so forth, while we have no qualms about other content.

i mean the lure of war is the tactics involved. you can compare it to chess so in essence you can make a game of it.
That's a bit of a stretch, and I suspect most people really enjoy the shooting part first and the tactics bit later (I know I do). More importantly, it seems like you're disregarding the actual content (i.e. killing people) in favour of the 'nature' of the game. Perhaps a rape sim is alluring to certain individuals because the tactics of the hunt get them going, but the reason why most would condemn such a game is because of what you really get to do, namely rape people at will.

those other subjects you mentioned cannot be compared to any game. we all played cowboys and indians as kids or had GI JOE fun but i'm sure none of us ever tried raping the neighbors daughter or giving her an abortion. thats no game i wanna play.
That does not matter. Just because we played cowboys and indians doesn't mean the context wasn't a little questionable: most kids want to be cowboys and shoot indians. I also very much doubt they like to do that because of the cunning tactics involved. Besides, how many kids play dictator, or crime lord, or dungeon keeper? You can make a game out of pretty much anything and whether we did something similar as kids or not is really of no consequence.

What it boils down to is that in today's society, games that simulate armed violence are generally accepted. We've become desensitised to the fake killings because we do it all the time and because we (specifically men) seem to have a certain innate desire to inflict damage upon other living beings that we have not bonded with. It is more or less regarded as normal, which is purely a cultivated view. On an objective, logical level it is all but impossible to defend a game in which you indiscriminately kill people with a gun, yet simultaneously condemn a game in which you indiscriminately kill fetuses with a surgical instrument.

[1badjedi]

i dont play flash games and i play my wargames to win not kill. yes i get to kill virtual people but the object is winning not tallying kills. yes i do enjoy these games but my real enjoyment comes from the final outcome not the method used in between. to be honest when i say wargames i'm not meaning call of duty and that phoney hollywood version of war. my thing is all tactics and thats why i like hex based wargames more than fps's with that theme. and as far as blood and guts those games dont usually touch on that. you see burned out vehicles and such but the death part in those games is definitely rated G cuz thats not the point of the game. so it's not a stretch for me to compare it to chess cuz thats basically what it is imo. the enemy makes a move and i counter or vice versa. when you break war down thats all it is.


btw in an axis vs allies style wargame you dont kill indiscriminately at all. the objective is to kill your enemy not everyone in range. so yeah i can condemn a game like you propose simply because the objective has no honor whatsoever. thats the key i guess. in wargames you choose a side and pretend to relive the moment. who the hell wants to relive an abortion or a rape besides someone seriously dysfunctional. where's the honor in that :dunno:

[DUKE HARDKNOCK]

my thing is all tactics and thats why i like hex based wargames more than fps's with that theme. and as far as blood and guts those games dont usually touch on that.
Fair enough, but the thread was really about first-person shooters. At least, that was what babystinky was talking about. Hex games are an entirely different ballgame, not in the least because they're so abstract. So yes, I'd have to agree that these games are akin to chess.

btw in an axis vs allies style wargame you dont kill indiscriminately at all. the objective is to kill your enemy not everyone in range.
I know, I have a passing familiarity with these titles. You could argue that you're still "playing with lives" though, but hex games resemble board games too much to really have any emotional impact I think.

so yeah i can condemn a game like you propose simply because the objective has no honor whatsoever. thats the key i guess. in wargames you choose a side and pretend to relive the moment.
Heh, it's debatable whether war is ever honourable (or memorable), but I won't go there. ;)

who the hell wants to relive an abortion or a rape besides someone seriously dysfunctional. where's the honor in that :dunno:
Strange people (and there are probably more of them than we might suspect). Also, I'd expect it'd be not so much about "honour" as self-indulgent gratification.

[incandescent]

On an objective, logical level it is all but impossible to defend a game in which you indiscriminately kill people with a gun, yet simultaneously condemn a game in which you indiscriminately kill fetuses with a surgical instrument.
then how come in real life we condemn killing people with a gun, but not killing fetuses with surgical instruments?

[1badjedi]

blidd nice reply i have no argument really. i'm jes sayin there should be no moral hangups about wargames due to the key word, game. ok so people will come up with the most vulgar tasteless games they can imagine but in the end it's still a game and has no impact on reality unless the player is completely nutso. in which case they shouldnt be playing games in the first place.

[babystinky]

How would anyone feel if *YOU* were in a bloody battle where your friends and Children ended up killed and lots of blood spilt?

Then the battle becomes the theme of a game for enjoyment?

I know there are games of wanton killing, this is true but surely specific battles had "real" people killed so the theme has a certain reality to it.
So the theme is important.

(not really a debate more interested in how people see it) :)

[DUKE HARDKNOCK]

then how come in real life we condemn killing people with a gun, but not killing fetuses with surgical instruments?
I was specifically talking about making games out of these things; there's a slight difference between aborting fetuses for fun and doing it not because you like to but because there is a good reason to do so. I know I'd rather not be forced to live as the result of rape, a constant reminder to my mother of such an awful event, or with severe congenital disabilities and so forth. However, I'm not going to pursue this subject in this thread any further - that's what the debate forum is for.

[sj_hurst]

Since the Romans didn't have video games, obviously.. To crave their appetites for violence, they used real people & animals to butcher each other in the coliseum. Could video games be a stepping-stone to something like The Running Man (Ahnold movie about a sadistic game show), similar to the Roman's gladiator games? Not likely in a few years.. But as increasing levels of violence become more and more acceptable (by society, as most experts agree is happening), over the decades, we could eventually end up with something a sadistic-type game show or gladiator-like sport.

The UFC is extremely violent, from what I've heard (don't watch it myself). Supposedly, the fighters really hurt each other (pretty bad too) in this "sport." Well, at least they're not killing each other (on purpose.. don't know if any died by accident).

Are these cuts on his back or is it part of his tatoos?
www.ufc.tv/multimedia/photoGallery_full_loader.asp?eventNumber=47&assetID=1290

Eye-gouging? Well, close enough. Ouch!
http://www.ufc.tv/multimedia/photoGallery_full_loader.asp?eventNumber=47&assetID=1317

From the pics, UFC appears to be a combination of kickboxing and wrestling. :dunno:

[sj_hurst]

I was specifically talking about making games out of these things; there's a slight difference between aborting fetuses for fun and doing it not because you like to but because there is a good reason to do so. I know I'd rather not be forced to live as the result of rape, a constant reminder to my mother of such an awful event, or with severe congenital disabilities and so forth. However, I'm not going to pursue this subject in this thread any further - that's what the debate forum is for.

Just curious.. Do you believe we had good reason to kill Germans in WWII? Was doing so honorable, dishonorable, or neither?

Personally, I believe it was neither honorable or dishonorable. But I do believe it was something that had to be done (to win the war) and that we were on the right side of that conflict.

[5_day_forecast]

I believe if someone's shooting at you, you are allowed to shoot back. Pearl Harbor was Japan, in extension Germany, so yeah. Fire away.

[Maniac]

I like realism when it comes to war games.... I like the feel of being there but not getting hurt.... like a history session, but fun. I don't know how veterans and such feel but I can't say what I would feel if I was in a battle and a game was made of it, but I guess it's kinda like movies, just a history lesson but put into means of entertainment.

:dunno:

[Montero]

I like realism when it comes to war games.... I like the feel of being there but not getting hurt.... like a history session, but fun. I don't know how veterans and such feel but I can't say what I would feel if I was in a battle and a game was made of it, but I guess it's kinda like movies, just a history lesson but put into means of entertainment.

:dunno:yea i love a game where it doesnt take 30 shots with a rifle that should take only 1 maybe 2 in real life. Games that are based on real occurances let me find out what all the soldiers went thru and i love it. MMM what a rush

[1badjedi]

Since the Romans didn't have video games, obviously.. To crave their appetites for violence, they used real people & animals to butcher each other in the coliseum. Could video games be a stepping-stone to something like The Running Man (Ahnold movie about a sadistic game show), similar to the Roman's gladiator games? Not likely in a few years.. But as increasing levels of violence become more and more acceptable (by society, as most experts agree is happening), over the decades, we could eventually end up with something a sadistic-type game show or gladiator-like sport.

The UFC is extremely violent, from what I've heard (don't watch it myself). Supposedly, the fighters really hurt each other (pretty bad too) in this "sport." Well, at least they're not killing each other (on purpose.. don't know if any died by accident).

Are these cuts on his back or is it part of his tatoos?
www.ufc.tv/multimedia/photoGallery_full_loader.asp?eventNumber=47&assetID=1290

Eye-gouging? Well, close enough. Ouch!
http://www.ufc.tv/multimedia/photoGallery_full_loader.asp?eventNumber=47&assetID=1317

From the pics, UFC appears to be a combination of kickboxing and wrestling. :dunno:



the UFC has tamed itself in recent years due to people's outrage that such a sadistic sport is allowed to flourish. now you have rounds and weightclasses whereas in the original version they fought til one man either tapped out or passed out. and in the early days i seen guys who were maybe 6 foot even and a little over 200lbs fightin guys who were much bigger in height and weight. tank abbot wasnt that big and he fought everyone. same with royce gracie. not a big man but choked out all comers. there is also a limit to which the "lets get it on" guy will allow one man to pummel another. if he sees a guy gettin his face pounded to mush he now steps in to stop it. before it didnt stop until the person gettin trashed was fully out. and when the choke holds last too long they are also broken. so this sport is kinda reversing itself from hell bent gladiator fighting to something only slightly more dangerous than boxing.

and yes it is a combo of all forms of martial arts/wrestling/barroom brawling. you think yer bad enough i guess they give ya shot. guys like tank abbot filled that role nicely. looked like a beer guzzling biker but was knocking out dudes left and right with one punch. i guess he was about 6 foot and one time he's up against a guy i thought was gonna pound him. the guy was like 7 feet tall it seemed. he came out swung wild and got knockeddafukout with a tank overhand in the middle of the ring. it was like rocky shit too cuz that dude came up off the floor before he hit it. he'd either do that or somehow get a guy on the ground and pound the shit out of their face. i saw him bash a guys face into the fence like 10x smiling at the cameraman that was there the whole time. it was real ill back then. and yeah i watched it like a religous fanatic goes to church. i seen people get knocked around like that in person so seein it made into a sport only legitimized in my mind :evil:

now it's lame in comparison. they never let it get as far as it used to go. if i'm not mistaken i think guys on the side road shows have died or became brain damaged due to fighting in UFC shows and the politicians have put the spotlight on them. they're banned in a few states too i think. now it's more sport than it used to be i guess. you see more technical fighting in matches than the knock down drag em out kinda affairs. the best shows now are the ones held outside the states cuz then ya see some good fights ;)

[DUKE HARDKNOCK]

Just curious.. Do you believe we had good reason to kill Germans in WWII? Was doing so honorable, dishonorable, or neither?

Personally, I believe it was neither honorable or dishonorable. But I do believe it was something that had to be done (to win the war) and that we were on the right side of that conflict.[/QUOTE]
I'd agree. And I believe that what I said regarding abortion also applies here: war may be 'functional' so to say and even necessary (insofar as you are required to defend yourself, at least), but you could question the motives behind making a game out of it and playing it (at least as far as first-person shooters are concerned).