Kotaku 
Enter your username and password.
Denver, 4:44 AM
Mon Nov 23
22 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip us: tips@kotaku.com
Editor-In-Chief:
Brian Crecente
Email | AIM | Twitter
Deputy Editor:
Stephen Totilo
Email | AIM | Twitter
Senior Editor:
Michael McWhertor
Email | AIM | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editor, Japan:
Brian Ashcraft
Email | AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editor, East Coast:
Michael Fahey
Email | AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editor, Oceania:
Luke Plunkett
Email | AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editor, Weekends:
Owen Good
Email | AIM | Twitter
Correspondent, San Francisco:
AJ Glasser
Email | AIM | Twitter
Columnist:
Leigh Alexander
Columnist:
Tim Rogers
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
02:07 AM
11/22/09
Yes yes, of course they had a good intention, but it seems they don't understand that games are designed to be fun, not tedious. Of course we know game isn't real. (and everyone should worry about someone who thinks that way) And nobody's going to base their opinions in real life according to a game. (and again and everyone should worry about someone who thinks that way)
Why don't we flag all the movies that feature terrorists and corrupt governments while at it?
11/22/09
11/22/09
11/22/09
Seriously, if we just culled the drop bears, we'd double the life expectancy in this country.
11/22/09
hmmm...
11/22/09
11/22/09
11/22/09
11/22/09
First is that it has clearly been written by someone who is almost entirely unfamiliar, not just with violent shooters, but with videogames in general. Obviously there is nothing wrong with that per se, but in this specific case, I think the obvious ignorance about the directorial intent behind a game, or the way in which certain in-game situations are supposed to function, harms the credibility of the report.
Second is that the tone taken is somewhat peculiar inasmuch as that it seems to be taking on some kind of reformist or censorial mantle. Statements such as: "it would be recommendable to avoid putting these kinds of scenes
in video games as they could mislead players in terms of what is allowed to be done" seem to me to assume a pretty low level of capability on the part of the gamer to distinguish between reality and fiction. This is a trap that the mainstream media often fall into and it's disappointing to see that level of ignorance on display in what presents itself as a piece of academic research.
I think that the way that Rainbow Six punishes the player for inflicting civilian casualties is a good thing, but that is because of it being good game design, not because I think games have some kind of moral duty to be presented in that way. The report reads as if it assumes that the role games should be playing is educating gamers about international law, and that other gameplay or narrative concerns should be secondary. To me, that is bizarre.
But, whatever I think about the (substantial) failings of this particular report, it is attempting to address some important issues. A lot of games are violent. Few of those come anywhere near situating that violence in a realistic context, even when they might claim to be pursuing realism. We live in a world where gratuitous violence is exploited for entertainment potential all the time, but that that doesn't mean that, once in every ten (or even hundred) titles, a game can't come along with something more intelligent to say about war or about crime.
In the real world, rules of international law, and the pressures of perceived moral imperatives, act as influences on the behaviour of combatants in a manner that is often lazily caricatured, if not completely absent, in videogames. I think it is well worth asking why that is, and whether some games might be improved if efforts were made to better incorporate those kinds of themes and constraints.
11/22/09
Why, look at Serious Sam or Doom. Totally not grounded in reality, but no less fun because of it. Not every game needs realism or dramatic themes; as distasteful as it may seem, they could even go as far as completely trivializing violence for comedic or shock value. That's what creating a work of fiction is all about. It's about having the freedom to make things as realistic or as fantasied as one wishes.
By god, that freedom shall not be abrogated by ignorant stiffs and their incessant whining for us to "think of the children".
04:32 AM
11/22/09
There's a reason why you'll find forks and knives with swastikas on them hiding in some veteran's attic in Wisconsin. While I'm sure these soldiers were told not to do so, I could imagine that swiping an artifact from a particular battle would seem like nothing more than a notch on one's belt--a sign of victory; and wouldn't necessarily be stolen for monetary gain.
11/22/09
BTW, I live in Wisconsin, that hurts.
11/22/09
11/22/09
#speakup
11/22/09
We should be embracing this kind of analysis. Sure it may not get everything right, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't even be considered. If the same kind of study were to be addressed at modern war movies or books we'd call it film or literary criticism.
11/22/09
Imagine doing a literary analysis on a book called "A Clockwork Grapefruit" or "Romeo and Julia" and tell me the analysis is serious and deserving of consideration.
11/22/09
It could also be an issue of translation since this is a Swiss study.
And we can even drop the study and just use it as a starting point. I just want to see an intelligent analysis of what games can do rather than the knee jerk "this says games are evil therefore we should laugh at it".
Should games be used to discuss the ethics of combat? Should it be studied through an FPS or an RTS? Would it be better in the novelization of the game? What kind of mechanics should be used---quick time events, a sandbox, or FMV?
#speakup
11/22/09
"games are art" and "it's just a game" aren't contradictory.
11/22/09
This sort of thing seems to take a game that is putting across a message such as save the hostages, these guys are bad and turn it round to make the game look bad, when the objective is to save the civvies. Also it seems that terrorists dont give a damn for the IHL or IRHL, they kill civilians, but they themselves are civilians, but are counted as combatants... Contradiction?
11/22/09
They seem to be under the idea that video games should be portraying real life and really, in just about any art form, that is never the case. Yeah there are rules, limitations, and what not in real life, but then again, why should video games strife to immitate real life so closely? Granted I'm not saying they can't nor am I saying that at some point they shouldn't, I personally think it'd be interesting to play a game where such rules are in place and enforced, but that would be for that specific game, not for the medium in general.
In the same way that 2001: A Space Odyssey tried to be scientifically accurate with things like having no sound in space among other things. That's the way things would work in real life, but I don't think every space scene in every sci-fi movie or tv show should be silent. It worked for 2001 and it will work for movies and tv shows in the future, but it shouldn't have to be a hard and fast rule for the whole audio visual medium.
Also, their presumption that "The message of the scenes should never be that everything is allowed" is contrary to what Bad Company was about. Developers wanted players to level buildings and blow holes in walls, etc. To say that someting should never be the message is tantamount to censorship. Why shouldn't that ever be the message? The message should be whatever the artist wishes to express.
I'm sure someone will take this to mean that I support games that encourage the darker aspects of human behavior and to that I would respond that no I don't but the thing is I'm not saying that such a thought cannot exist, I merely have personal objections to said thought. This would be a case of Evelyn Hall's famouse quote (often mistakenly attributed to Voltaire) "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." So long as the darker ideas are not excercised in reality to the harm of others, I see no reason why they should be censored.
11/22/09
#speakup
11/22/09
Imagine a video game where you are in a crowded area fighting terrorists who are killing civilians at will, but you are limited to taking very specific shots (or penalized for killing civilians). The contradiction would then be seen very clearly. Now the next time you hear about some tragic event in Iraq where the solider accidentally kills civilians you can see where he is coming from.
#speakup
11/22/09
My country doesn't seem to have that much of a problem, seeming that we don't launch predator drone attacks on villages without reason or concrete intel. Also I will probably have to make calls like that soon as I hope to become an Officer in the British Army.
11/22/09
11/22/09
11/22/09
The report itself is an interesting one to read, but surely it's just a more extreme version of 'Video games are violent zomgz!' spewed at the masses by the media. The video game medium is a place of fantasy, they shouldn't have to adhere to the rules of the real world.
What next? Shall we try ring PETA and tell them Mario has been exterminating the indigneuous creatures of the mushroom kingdom? Reign Nathan Drake in for stealing ancient artifacts? Prosecute Master Chief for war crimes against alien species? What about Ash Ketchum, roaming the countryside and trapping innocent creatures in tiny little balls - I'm sure that's illegal too! Try him! It's a little bit silly.
11/22/09
11/22/09
I actually see this as a positive thing. It's a sign that videogames are becoming more and more accepted as a storytelling medium, and thus they are being analyzed more critically and people are beginning to care about what these games are saying, rather than disregarding them as mindless childish fodder.
In the case at hand, for the most part, I agree that most of the games dealing with war do so from the standpoint of entertainment. As such, pointing out the fact that there are "warcrimes" or otherwise questionable actions being done, even glorified, in the game is the same as analyzing Rambo as if it were Saving Private Ryan.
The fact that video games are being analyzed as though they were trying to be the latter gives me hope that we'll one day have a video game that will succeed on that front.
11/22/09
That being said, I would like to see more war games that adhere strictly to the rules of warfare. Remember Police Quest, where if you didn't do things by the book, the game ended? Something like that. I'm sure there are games like that out there, but I'm drawing a blank.
11/22/09
"In other scenes, the goal seems to be to kill all enemies, even those who are wounded or who
have surrendered. According to a "walkthrough" of the game "enemies that have been
subdued can be awaken if found by another PMC soldier. With this in mind, you should get
into a habit of finishing knocked out enemies off. A very effective way to do this is take out
your Stun Knife, single crouch beside the enemy, hold L1, and press R1 to kill any subdued
enemy in one hit." This also amounts to a violation of the obligation to spare those who do
not or no longer take part in hostilities."
Somebody obviously wasn't playing this game correctly.
11/22/09
"enemies that have been
subdued can be awaken if found by another PMC soldier."
"This also amounts to a violation of the obligation to spare those who do
not or no longer take part in hostilities."
Sounds like a bit of a liability to me. I haven't really played the Metal Gear Solid games; can Solid Snake move and hide the bodies of incapacitated enemies?
11/22/09
If you follow your instructions properly (and aim for the highest ranks) then you need to finish the game without killing anyone (even bosses) or even alerting the enemy to your presence. the only violations in the game, beyond espionage, are choices the player makes.
The people behind the study mention that such options are detrimental to their cause and shouldn't really be allowed in the games, though that's bullshit as any soldier or civilian in a war torn area has the choice to commit war crimes, and in doing so they don't suddenly blink out of existence with a "Fission Mailed" screen overlaid in their vision, they have to live with the consequences.
In MGS4, killing someone will likely make your game harder as you have to dump the body somewhere it's not going to be seen... plus it ruins your chances at getting high ranks. You certainly aren't rewarded for committing such acts!
11/22/09
I guess videogame based studies prove difficult to get the facts right compared to other mediums. I would like other studies of this kind though; there is certainly great potential in it.