Opting Out of Playing the Bad Guys

[Gilmer]

the 24-hour news cycle and instant access to news via the Internet.

William T Sherman "If I had my choice, I'd kill every reporter in the world, but I'm sure we'd be getting reports from Hell before breakfast."

This in no way endorses the kind of violence he jokingly suggested.

[bayonetbrant]

Yeah, I mean, it's not like McLuhan wasn't about 30% of the bibliography of my dissertation or anything. But get down whitcherbadself and your journalism prof (never mind I actually was one, not just studying under one).


The point of "the medium is the message" is that how you communicate something is the key component of the message.

Consider a message informing you that your significant other is leaving you.

A hand-written letter conveys one meaning
A text on the cell phone conveys another
A billboard on the side of the highway is a totally different kind of message even though they all say "I'm leaving you"


but hey, that class you had, I'm sure was pretty awesome.



Back to the subject - the makeups of different creative communities inevitably change of time, and those creative communities will challenge "the way it's always been done" to the displeasure of those who are perfectly fine with the way it's always been done.

It happens in literally every creative endeavor in human history.

[bayonetbrant]

and with that, I'm out and y'all can have your own playground back, as it's clear you're not big on other faces stopping in for a visit....

[JWW]

ORIGINAL: bayonetbrant

Yeah, I mean, it's not like McLuhan wasn't about 30% of the bibliography of my dissertation or anything. But get down whitcherbadself and your journalism prof (never mind I actually was one, not just studying under one).


The point of "the medium is the message" is that how you communicate something is the key component of the message.

Consider a message informing you that your significant other is leaving you.

A hand-written letter conveys one meaning
A text on the cell phone conveys another
A billboard on the side of the highway is a totally different kind of message even though they all say "I'm leaving you"


but hey, that class you had, I'm sure was pretty awesome.



Back to the subject - the makeups of different creative communities inevitably change of time, and those creative communities will challenge "the way it's always been done" to the displeasure of those who are perfectly fine with the way it's always been done.

It happens in literally every creative endeavor in human history.

Meaning the medium, how you communicate something, as you say, for example TV, is, as you say, the key component of the message. So............we are back to where I started, bubba. Sorry I triggered you with a reference to McLuhan.

[Kuokkanen]

ORIGINAL: KurtC

The video originally posted was roundly criticized by a lot of people, though. People know what they are buying, so trying to educate them after or anyone acting like they didn't know, is bonkers, if you ask me.

I have read stories about parents buying games to their children, then complaining its violent or homosexual or whatever else content. Clearly not all the people know what they are buying.

[Zovs]

My mother purchased my first war games for me in 1976, D-Day, Afrika Korps, Battle of the Bulge, and Waterloo. Then six months later for my birthday she got me The Russian Campaign, Third Reich, PanzerBlitz and PanzerLeader. I was set and destined for life. I joined the Army in 1987 and life has been grand. We got to drive unstoppable tanks and blow stuff up, it was like when I was a kid and I spent hours making military models only to take them into the garden and blow them up with rocks or light them on fire. I killed a lot of plastic army men in my time.

The person who created YouTube thing was a joke with an agenda, its utter rubbish.

[IslandInland]

ORIGINAL: bayonetbrant

and with that, I'm out and y'all can have your own playground back, as it's clear you're not big on other faces stopping in for a visit....

You should stick around. The clique is strong in this forum.

[AndySfromVA]

In WW2 games don't mind playing the Axis but I'd like to also play the Allies.
I hope Panzer Corps 2 will have a DLC that will have Allied campaigns.

[Kuokkanen]

ORIGINAL: AndySfromVA

I hope Panzer Corps 2 will have a DLC that will have Allied campaigns.

First one has it. It's called Allied Corps

[GaryChildress]

I don't know. There are a LOT of games out there where you can play as the Germans or Japanese in World War II. Some people, including me, willingly play as those factions sometimes, if they are interesting to play--even when we are given free choice to do so or not do so. Or what about Panzer Corps and Panzer General, for example? IIRC when those games first started out, there was no option at all to play allies in campaign mode. Did those games "normalize" evil? I mean, I think the majority of us here know right from wrong in real life and don't belong to the local Nazi party. I don't think I've ever seen anyone here espouse Nazism. And even if there are a few who do, was it because of video games "normalizing" the ideology that caused them to become Nazis or were there deeper issues at root that caused it?

And what comes next? Will video games need to discourage people from playing the Orcs in DoW or the Zerg in StarCraft? I mean, maybe that "normalizes" bad guys and the next step after that is to become a Nazi? [&:]

EDIT: For clarification, this post is in response to the OP, not anyone else's particular post.

[demyansk]

When I play the Germans I think of the army. Not the Nazi party.

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: demyansk

When I play the Germans I think of the army. Not the Nazi party.

Same here. The games I play strictly deal with the military aspects of the war and not politics. I mean, I don't know of any WWII games that include the more unsavory aspects of the war. Also both sides have unsavory moments of shame to them. Should we not play as allies in a flight simulator because of the effects of strategic bombing on civilians? Will it desensitize us to the killing of civilians in war? And what if a person is a German or Japanese citizen and wants to play as their own people in a WWII game? Should that be discouraged too? Should we view them as evil today because they chose to play the wrong side in a video game? I don't know. This all sounds a bit ridiculous or over the top to me. Maybe I'm wrong.

EDIT: Or what about war games at all? Do wargames "normalize" war? Maybe we should all quit wargames and play games like Asteroids or Pac Man?

[Capt. Harlock]

ORIGINAL: GaryChildress

ORIGINAL: demyansk

When I play the Germans I think of the army. Not the Nazi party.

Same here. The games I play strictly deal with the military aspects of the war and not politics. I mean, I don't know of any WWII games that include the more unsavory aspects of the war. Also both sides have unsavory moments of shame to them. Should we not play as allies in a flight simulator because of the effects of strategic bombing on civilians? Will it desensitize us to the killing of civilians in war? And what if a person is a German or Japanese citizen and wants to play as their own people in a WWII game? Should that be discouraged too? Should we view them as evil today because they chose to play the wrong side in a video game? I don't know. This all sounds a bit ridiculous or over the top to me. Maybe I'm wrong.

EDIT: Or what about war games at all? Do wargames "normalize" war? Maybe we should all quit wargames and play games like Asteroids or Pac Man?

The strategic games of WWII's Pacific theater generally include civilian deaths (e.g. "Manpower" hits in War in the Pacific). I find this somewhat disturbing -- but it is a very real part of history. Note the Japanese use of chemical and biological weapons in China is generally not modeled, but the atomic bombs are.

Fortunately, in these games, the Allied player always has the option not to use nuclear weapons. But maybe there should be a political cost for civilian casualties, lest we forget.

[warspite1]

Well this thread continues and has not been locked so I'll venture my GBP£0.02.

I don't really get the whole civilian deaths thing when playing a strategic level game of WWII. For the avoidance of doubt I am NOT talking about the holocaust and similar acts. I am talking purely about the deaths of civilians as a result of the fact there was a war on and there was collateral damage.

Of course to an extent civilians have always been in the way and there have always been civilian casualties in wars down the ages. But it is the sheer scale of WWII, the scope of operations and the military technological advancements, that made WWII so destructive for the civilian population of many countries. WWII took this to another level, partly due to strategic bombing, but also because WWII was total war and not all civilians could remove themselves from the areas fought over.

But if we are to be squeamish over civilian deaths to the point that nuclear weapons are not playable, then what about strategic bombing? And if that is not acceptable then what about the very act of going to war in the first place? How many civilians are estimated to have been killed as a result of the Normandy invasion as just one example? 20,000 is a number I've seen. Some the result of tactical bombing, some the result of shore bombardment, and many because they were unlucky enough to be in the firing line when the war came to their city, town, village or farm.

I don't really see how 'manpower hits' is an unacceptable concept in a strategic war game. I know that manpower pools was a concept that the World In Flames designers were thinking about for when the game came to computer. I don't know to what extent this was really considered, how it would be calculated, and why it was dropped - but it would actually be an excellent addition to a strategic game. The reasoning is simple. Playing World In Flames with oil is a different game to playing without. Oil is simply vital and it can't be squandered (particularly by the Axis) and so moves can be limited by the oil situation. This is totally realistic and greatly adds to the WWII feel of the game.

By the same token, manpower restrictions would add hugely to the game experience. Manpower by the end of the war was becoming an issue for all participants and was certainly a major issue for the Commonwealth which had to dismantle divisions to keep manpower to the required levels in others. As with oil limiting movements, so the need to conserve fighting strength would perhaps make for more realistic appraisals when launching attacks and campaigns - and unrealistically sacrificing whole armies to delay an opponent. Manpower available for fighting was affected by losses in the field, PoW taken, home territory captured by the enemy and the effects of strategic bombing. Manpower available for the army would be effected by the size of the navy and air force. Hell, one could even have a resource output effect - depending upon the size of the armed forces (and the subsequent knock-on effect of those available for industry). Loads of possibilities.

But I guess everyone has a line they, personally, don't want to cross. The use of the bomb in WWII is not a line for me. Terrible as they were, they brought this most destructive of wars to an end and, in my view, they are what have kept the major powers at peace (localised conflicts aside) since 1945.

[RangerJoe]

The colt .45 pistol was called the peacemaker because, when it came out, people became peaceful one way or another. War is another tool of diplomacy and we all know the consequences of not wanting to use it. That was another thread. If WWII was total war and manpower was another input for the manufacturing of weapons of war, then it was bound to be targeted.

[Kuokkanen]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

By the same token, manpower restrictions would add hugely to the game experience.

It does in Aggressors: Ancient Rome. Manpower is a concrete resource which affects on production of given city (as in Civilization games) and # of military units that can be made & maintained. Unlike in Civ games, building of a military unit reduces manpower from the cities.

[RangerJoe]

In Civ, drafting military units does reduce manpower. So does the hurry mode for certain governments. But I have only played up to CIV3.

[bayonetbrant]

ORIGINAL: demyansk

When I play the Germans I think of the army. Not the Nazi party.

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/j5wa ... n-soldiers

[RangerJoe]

The person who wrote that should get their terminology correct as well as do more research.

[demyansk]

I know the research, and going back to 1940 as an 18 year old and deciding what's really going is quite different than 2019. No tv, internet and all government controlled media, this includes the other side as well.

Enough said