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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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/sh...w_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

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

[1badjedi]

Originally Posted by 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!!!

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 [spellingnazi]appalled has no U[/spellingnazi]

[Ailuros]

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

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

MAKE LOVE, NOT WAR

[opus512]

Originally Posted by Ailuros

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

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

MAKE LOVE, NOT WAR

Only because it was Plaster

[Plaster]

Originally Posted by opus512

Only because it was Plaster

You know it.

[1badjedi]

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]

Originally Posted by Blidd

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

[DUKE HARDKNOCK]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.