How Do Call of Duty and Battlefield Misrepresent War? | Game/Show | PBS Digital Studios
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 23 мар 2015
- Viewers like you help make PBS (Thank you 😃) . Support your local PBS Member Station here: to.pbs.org/DonateGAME
Tweet at us! / pbsgameshow
Follow us on Facebook / gameshowpbs
Email us! pbsgameshow [at] gmail [dot] com
Follow us on Reddit / pbsgameshow
Call of Duty, Battlefield, and Medal of Honor are among some of the MOST popular games right now, meaning that war is also on the forefront of a lot of gamer's minds. However, games like Call of Duty choose to portray war in a very specific fashion, specifically, one that presumably makes it "fun." But should games like Call of Duty and Battlefield do more than that? Should they be held accountable for what they choose to portray, as well as how they choose to portray it? And if so, how can these games do a better job at portraying at least some of the complexity of modern warfare? Watch this week's episode of Game/Show and find out!
Men playing as women:
www.slate.com/blogs/future_ten...
Female Link Jam:
jams.gamejolt.io/femalelinkjam
Other Links:
docs.google.com/a/kornhaberbr...
ASSETS:
:34 Marines HD Combat Afghanistan -- Retreat Hell!
• Marines HD COMBAT AFGH...
2:03 Men Against Tanks -- 1943 Training Film For German Soldiers
• Video
2:30 How To Play Risk
• Video
3:59 WW2 Soldiers HD
• World war 2 tribute to...
4:02 Raw Uncut Vietnam Footage
• Raw Uncut Vietnam Footage
4:05 Operation Desert Storm British Pathé
• Video
6:36 Heckler & Koch M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle
• Heckler & Koch M27 Inf...
6:41 M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle Live-fire
• M27 Infantry Automatic...
6:49 General Amos Warns His Marines To Save Every Round, Every Gallon of Gas
• General Amos Warns His...
COMMENTS:
Esivo
• Why Can't Link Be a Gi...
Kotano
• Why Can't Link Be a Gi...
246alive
• Why Can't Link Be a Gi...
RockyRaccoon1986
• Why Can't Link Be a Gi...
Stephen Hoyle
• Why Can't Link Be a Gi...
Mattmaster56
• Why Can't Link Be a Gi...
Nathanael Walsh
• Why Can't Link Be a Gi...
Dreamrunner111
• Why Can't Link Be a Gi...
wolflordjsww
• Why Can't Link Be a Gi...
youngotakubwoy
• Why Can't Link Be a Gi...
Some Guy
• Why Can't Link Be a Gi...
hidrotule2001
• Why Can't Link Be a Gi...
Tweets:
Kiva Bay
/ 578285760341643264
Faye Davis
/ 579368193581404160
MUSIC:
"Oh Damn!" by CJVSO
/ cjvso-oh-damn
"Digital Sonar" by Brink
"Mindphuck" by Known To Be Lethal
• Video
"After Hours"
"Lakes" by Chooga
• Chooga - 3170 Lakes
"Beautiful Days" by Extan
/ beautiful-days
"Spectrum Subdiffusion Mix" by Foniqz
/ foniqz-spectrum-subdif...
"Good Way Song" by Electronic Rescue
"Alice y Bob" by Javier Rubio and Parsec
archive.org/details/escala19_...
"Sleet" by Kubbi
/ kubbi-sleet
"Toaster" by Kubbi
/ toaster
"Patriotic Songs of America" by New York Military Band and the American Quartet
freemusicarchive.org/music/New...
"Lets Go Back To The Rock" by Outsider
www.jamendo.com/en/artist/440...
"Run" by Outsider
www.jamendo.com/en/artist/440...
"Fame" by Statue of Diveo
www.jamendo.com/en/artist/352...
"Freedom Weekends" by Statue of Diveo
www.jamendo.com/en/artist/352...
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hosted by Jamin Warren (@jaminwar)
See more on games and culture on his site: www.killscreendaily.com
Made by Kornhaber Brown (www.kornhaberbrown.com)
And regarding my glasses:
• Has League of Legends ...
You answered your own question. ARMA exists but almost nobody plays it because there isn't really an audience for that level of complexity and realism. CoD, battlefield, etc aren't game analogs for war, they are game versions of war and action movies like Rambo. People like fun, dumb, escapism. They aren't looking for a strategy game or PTSD when they pick up an FPS.
Also, even if people wanted tactical teamwork, Game AI still isn't good enough to make that not frustrating. Your only other option is human co-op, but most humans are dumber than the bad AI.
Darthelmet As I closed the episode with, there can be a range, even among pop hits. In film, you have Full Metal Jacket, Jarhead, Saving Private Ryan, Fury *and* Inglorious Bastards. There's a wide range there and all of those were commercial productions.
PBS Game/Show Right, but what is your point? A problem I have with some of your episodes (worth noting that I like most of them that don't have this problem) is that sometimes your central argument is fairly vague, so it is difficult to even establish the discussion we are having with each other. In this case, what are you trying to argue? That there should be games in a war setting that are strategic/realistic in some way? If so, those exist and you listed them. I'm happy they exist and sometimes I play them.
If your argument is that there should be more of these games, then the answer to why there aren't is because they just aren't as commercially viable. It's really difficult to make a smart piece of media that is as commercially successful as a dumb mass market one. We get multiple superhero movies every year that make millions and if we are lucky we get one or two Oscar-worthy movies that make a comparable amount.
If your argument is that already successful dumb "war" game franchises should make an effort to make their games more realistic or strategic, then you are misunderstanding what those games are and why people play them. Call of Duty isn't a war game. It's a playable action movie where you are the badass who kills an entire army with an endless supply of bullets. The modern CoD games aren't even really set in wars anymore. They're more thematically similar to an international spy action movie than a war and their gameplay is basically just a faster duck hunt with a lot of scripted events. This is the experience people are looking for when they play a game like that. If they wanted strategy they could play a strategy game. If they wanted realism they could play ARMA. If they wanted horror of war they could play Spec Ops The Line or This War of Mine. But they don't because these are markets with very little overlap. Think about this: Even Spec Ops ended up not advertising their horrors of war angle and their trailer made it look like another generic action FPS. That's what sells copies to the mass market consumer.
Darthelmet " Game AI still isn't good enough to make that not frustrating. "
Actually, game AI can be very good and tactical, it's just that most Devs dumb it down for the players. I remember one presentation where the AI would cover fire and flank the player realistically. All the testers hated it and thought the AI cheated and magically teleported to that flank position.
Maybe people don't play ARMA because the controls are kinda counter-intuitive.
Jstar300 I think that's part of it. ARMA and strategy games tend to have a control scheme which could be overwhelming to play. I bought SCII, played through the campaign on easy mode, then quit after realizing I'd never get out of bronze league in multiplayer because I just couldn't get a handle on the controls. Part of the success of dumb shooter games is that they aren't just thematically dumb, they are also really simple to play. Just point, shoot, and magical bullets instantly hit your target where you were aiming without any travel time. Pretty easy to play even if it isn't realistic.
CoD and Battlefield represent war like Romantic novels represent actual relationships.
Great analogy
I like your way of thinking ;)
***** Great analogy indeed.
Well put.
They also represent games like Romantic novels represent novels...
The replies to the Link video are very disappointing. A female Link stood proud and mighty amongst almost 30 years worth of Link and his/her's various incarnations or the same thing as always. You're not even saying "Link should always be female", you're merely saying "lets give it a shot" and the comments say "no". Just a bit of a shame.
There's a big difference between creating new stories with a more diverse cast and trying to rewrite existing stories for the sole purpose of changing one of the characters gender. You just don't radically change stuff that already exists and already has an important fan base. It feels very cheap if they do that, as if they are too lazy to come up with a new story.
Lttlemoi But isn't that what happens in almost every Zelda story? Why did they choose to use a different Art style and setting in WindWaker and Twilight Princess if not to shake things up and rewrite the existing story? These were radical changes, not only to gameplay, but story narrative. Changing the gender of one character would do very little to gameplay or narrative, the only changes would be social implications.
Jack Oliver
To be honest, I have never played a Zelda game (and neither did I respond to the previous video). This is just what I imagine is the reason, because I would react in the exact same way if they made such a change in one of my favorite stories.
Think of what Star Wars fans would say when George Lucas decides that for his next film, Luke Skywalker was to be a woman and that we should now call her Lucy Skywalker.
Moreover, a story is primarily based on the characters and the interaction between them. The art style and setting are less important than the actual story.
Lttlemoi
And you change a LOT of the stuff that already has a fanbase.
Korra add lots of avatar legend backstory, Miles Morales (or even organic spider shotters and spider totens), Fem/Frog/Alienhorseface/beardedmetaldude Thor, Black Captain America, Dick Batman, dead superman, all the 32 green lanters, differences in adaptations, diferences in minor characters....
People even adapted Jesus Christ as a white blue eyed northen european !
The MAIN PONT of Zelda is : Triforce - Evil is power, Zelda is Wisdom, Link is Courage. You grab some itens and you save the world.
Saving the princes, how the items work with dungeuns, how you traverse the enviroment, what enviroment is that and if you hair is pink or brown are ALL things that changed in games of the series. There are even games without Zelda or any owner of the triforce of power !
It is desirable that the owner of the Triforce of Courage is romanticaly involved with the owner of the Triforce of Wisdom, but if it is a game like Link's Awakening that don't even HAVE zelda than what ? =P
Sam van Lonkhuyzen
The story could indeed have featured a woman doing all the stuff that you describe. I never said otherwise. Whether it would be statistically right is a point for another debate that I don't want to start here.
All I was saying is that instead of changing what existed, they should just create a new story with a woman in the lead and leave the existing stuff as it is.
Platy News
Indeed a lot of stuff is changed all the time and guess what? I think that they are wrong to do that. Change for the sake of change is not helpful. Btw, if Zelda is not in the game, perhaps Link should find another girl to screw if that's so important.
Star Wars Republic Commando was ahead of its time for what it offered. The squad mate order system made teamwork matter. You felt naked and exposed when you're separated from the team, when regrouped the environment highlighted positions you could utilize. It mattered to have the sniper in a perched spot, or the demolition on breaching. Hell any of them could do the job, but each excelled at certain roles and made you rethink positions in every encounter.
Groot!
I Am Groot Not really? I mean yeah awesome game I loved it, but isn't it really just a rip-off of Rainbow six? or ghost recon? (lets be honest every good star wars game is a polished clone of another popular game.
It is also SUPER easy to run out of ammo so you have to conserve bullets and melee a lot
I Am Groot You are so right, I loved that game. Such a challenge compared to the likes of CoD. MY only criticism of it was that it was way too short!
IDidSawABear "Polished clone"
*drumsnare* I see what you did there
The better questions is, how does Splatoon misrepresent war?
so you're telling me if I get shot I won't respawn back
Not necessarily, they could penalize death more rather than make it a slight annoyance.
Eddie Gruver I think he was making a joke about real life.
Well then...
That really depends on how much XP your medic has.
or what gamemode
Games are games, games about war are games. War is war.
Ok captain obvious but what is your personal opinion based on the video.
Sean Miller Games are just games and even when about war, they are still games. War is war, but is war a game?
kek
Nicoyutub Hey, captain! I disagree, I think the media we consume are directly connected with how we see the world. It is a mutual relation: we choose them biased and they mold how we see the world.
Gustavo Lacerda I think that's a half truth. I think that only happens to dumb people :)
The earlier Tom Clancy games had an emphasis on realism.
bobtheman1y So true. Before I bought myself an Xbox 360 back in 2010 I passed Tom Clancy Ghost Recon 3. It was super real and fun. I still remember that if you get shot, you die, which made it super real therefore you had to use trees and other objects at cover and can't run out killing numerous of enemies.
Yes they did and I so desperately miss that
Super Bunny Hop has a great video about the Rainbow Six series: ?v=kIiZ977gpOU
Next you're going to tell me Street Fighter doesn't teach me how to fight
hoemuffin Nicole Majeski I play 3rd Strike and I do some amateur boxing and the "miss/pay" mentality is pretty much the same. It´s a shame I can´t box like Dudley in real life :(
hoemuffin I played Mortal Kombat once and some kid decided to run at me, next thing he knew (well, next thing I knew as well) he was on the ground covered in dirt...yeah I don't know
I don't understand why games like what you're describing don't exist already. Super-limited ammo resources? Requiring use of complex tactics? That sounds like the most hardcore shooter of all time. Would play.
Only wall I can see here is that for teamwork developers are gonna have to either work really hard to make excellent AI, or the game would have to be online only so you could team with other human players.
Well he did point out Arma, but I have also heard some good things about CSGO.
Sort of like republic comando with the tactics and ammo except better
Yes the games called ARMA! )))
Tim Mazzola The closest thing besides Arma I've found to something you describe is a mod for BF2 called Project Reality. It's more simplified than ARMA in many respects (partly due to the limits of the engine and game, partly due to design) but has complex tactics, an integrated logistics system, high skill specialized roles in vehicles and leadership, and a highly vocal teamwork system designed around squad leaders, radio channels, and a chain of authority. The better team almost always wins, and the combat itself can either be drawn out into huge combined arms chess matches or lightning fast ambushes and cqc fighting.
There are online games that involve tactics. However, there's no way for this to simulate the kind of teamwork you have in war. Sure, if you join a clan, you might get something close. But a random matched-up group of people is going to be filled with people of various skill levels who have never met before and have no hierarchy and probably won't have the same expectations of how to have fun with the game.
You can't simulate teamwork. You need an actual team.
Also, give me a WW2 FPS told from the perspective of a German solider for once.
play red orchestra 2
The Cheese
Not what I meant, I mean a single player campaign exploring war from their perspective.
Unless RO2/RS has a single player campaign and I've just completely missed it.
Patrick Adams
RO2 does have single player campaign. It has a German and Russian campaign IIRC, but it's a game focused on multiplayer so I wouldn't expect anything special from the campaign that isn't already in the multiplayer.
Patrick Adams
The problem with this idea is that, the player would theoretically want to be a Nazi. Unless you're talking about playing as an Alliance sympathizer inside the Reich. However, very, VERY few companies would be willing to make a game that could be seen as having Nazi sympathies, and with good reason.
Chris Vitullo
Wrong, not all German soldiers in WW2 were Nazi's just like not all Germans were Nazi's. Just because they fought on the losing side, or were drafted and forced to fight shouldn't delegitimize the experience of soldiers who really at the end of it all were defending their country. Seeing the war from the other side could have as much meaning as seeing the war through the eyes of the victors.
I been in the Army for 15 years and yes games do misrepresent war or battle or the military. I can go in a hundred reasons why 99% of military games are laughable, such as why do you get a promotion from a Sergeant Major to a 2nd lieutenant even though the Sergeant Major has around 2 decades of experience compared to a 2nd lieutenant who just joined the army/marines? or why you have automatic rifles when most armies believe in "one shot one kill? or why does a soldier have the knowledge to pilot a jet, a helicopter and tank when you actually have to go to school for each one of those vehicles? not counting the trauma that you can go from loosing a friend, seeing innocent civilians die or even killing an enemy. But games like COD and Battlefield are supposed to be fun and ridiculous, when I was in Iraq and Afghanistan we used to play games like COD and Halo even though we just came back from a mission because after all is just a game.
You will never capture the true essence of being a war in a game unless you actually experience war as a soldier or civilian.
Grimm Stabnandez I'm purely curious, have you tried games like Valiant Hearts (WWI game) or maybe something more like This War of Mine? perhaps even something far out there like Valkyria Chronicles? if so I'd be interested to hear your opinion on these very different war games.
IDidSawABear
I'm actually planning to buy Valiant Hearts it seems like an interesting game. I also played Spec Ops the Line which found to be one of the best stories on a game besides The Last of Us and the Walking Dead.
Grimm Stabnandez I would also like to add 9as someone who has been a Marine for the past 10 years), about the actual percentage of military personnel that actually gets to shot a weapon in a combat zone. I did two, 1-year tours in Iraq and I can tells you that the most I saw was IDF and insurgents being transported, This games a more fiction than anything.To make a "realistic" was game you would have to have roles for all these people who never actually get to see combat and, well, that game would be just as boring as real life.
Alex1jag
exactly it wouldn't be real fun specially if you're just an average grunt or pog.
Jrashta 'Vamarai either one
For a more tactical approach to shooters, the early Rainbow Six games were huge on that. You could sometimes spend more time planning a mission on the map, setting up routes for the various squads in your team before the mission starts, than actually executing the plan in the game. Violence was sparse and sudden, and over very quickly. It wasnt really built to be satisfying, but instead to be suspenseful, or even scary. You didnt look forward to shooting at stuff, you were just hoping you wouldn't screw up, and that no one in your squad would get shot. It was very intense, even though it was simple and dry.
Sadly, they simplified, toned down and eventually more or less removed the more tactical portions of the game over time, its a very different series nowadays. Im sure its still a lot of fun, but it used to be so much more unique...
Super Bunnyhop's video "anti-war war games" is a good video to check out about games that acurrately depict warfare.
Completely floored that Spec Ops: the Line wasn't mentioned, nor was the very real psychological effects of warfare.
Wow. Your end comment about all of the people who don't want a female Link was uncalled for. How about you just say what we all know what you're thinking. "I am a much more forward and better human being then all of those sexist cavemen in the comments." First off, I want to address the female Thor thing. I love the series so far. They are concealing her identity and just making her a badass. It's great. However, people who didn't want a female Thor ARE NOT SEXIST. Loki became female for over a year and no one gave two shits. Why? Because it was Loki. He was the same person just in a different body. He died and was resurrected in a woman's body. Might hate the argument "people never cared when Thor was a frog". You know why no one cared? Because he was a frog for three issues. If the writers came out and were like "Hey guys! Thor's now dead and we replaced with a frog with no plan to bring the original Thor back" people would be PISSED. You have to understand that from an outside observer this looks great! They are representing more minorities and are forward thinking. For someone (like me) who's read Thor comics for 15 years you see them taking away one of your favorite characters and putting a new one I front of you and saying, "What? You liked the old Thor? Well we're getting rid of him and instead here's a new better Thor." If Thor the character turned female through a great story no one would care. What they did was literally have Thor not be able to pick up his hammer and then a random unknown person on the moon picks it up. No explanations just BAM! Characters gone. I take good stories and characters over being politically correct. For someone who claims to do tons of research you posted a picture of THOR GIRL on your last video not the new female Thor. They are two completely different characters. I don't want them to make Wonder Woman a man or Black Panther white just for the sake of expanding their audience. If there is a good reason and story behind it then I will while heartedly support it. There is no reason to state that people who don't want a female link are unjustified in thinking that. Maybe it's just me but I think I'd rather have new ORIGINAL characters that represent minorities rather than change white straight male characters into them. Doesn't it kind of send the message that these minority characters can't do well on their own so they need tons of support from pre-existing franchises to get off the shelves? If the reason to change Link is just because "females like to play as females and men don't care" then why not just be able to choose your gender? It is more inclusive to a wider audience. At the end of the day I just think that your comment at the end was very narrow minded and I thank you for taking the time out of your day to read my rambling thoughts.
Thank you for that comment. I'm not kidding, I was scrolling down for a while to try and find someone else who was upset at the fact that the host basically thinks that all of those who oppose a female Link are just sexist. Changing a character for the sake of changing a character shouldn't be a thing. Pander to the minorities all you want, if a character is poorly written and just thrown in to pacify a vocal minority, most everyone who pays even slight attention will hate it, and you run the risk of alienating the original fans. Just as a male Zelda wouldn't quite fit, a female Link just doesn't fit either.
gar funkey Well in the original lore Loki is a shapeshifter, was just as likely to be female as male or anything in between.
Same with Links only defining feature being "the hero of time". That's not gender specific either.
Good comment anyway, would be easier to read with a couple paragraphs ^_^
Wildfan95 A prince Zelda and female Link would fit fine, their roles don't involve anything that requires a specific gender.
gar funkey I should point out that the question was unfair from the get go, if you don't want a female Link than you are just a sexist misogynistic pig who does not like women equality, but if you do than his point is reinforced.
Alex1jag Jamin never called the commenters sexist. He just responded to their arguments. To the people that say it just doesn't fit the character he says the female Thor comics are doing great, showing it can be done well and that there is clearly an audience for this stuff.
And most importantly (according to himself), Link is a reincarnating entity, having been all kinds of similar but separate characters, and has taken various alternate forms throughout the series (such as a wolf and a goron). So he asks Link having taken all those forms, why can't he be female?
I think he might be taking the idea a little too far, but I respect his opinion and I think his arguments are valid. I don't think he ever implied people that don't agree are sexist, or if he did I personally doubt he meant to.
Yay they mentioned Warlight. Players please comment if you know this game!!!!!
Great :)
Count Hiram Yay Warlight!!! :D
Count Hiram We are important now! :)
Count Hiram WE EXIST!
For Fizzer!
im a leader in ththe lost wolves XD if this increases the amount of people on warlight then we get recruits
Have you ever played Bladestorm: 100 Years War? It's a really great medieval combat game where you play as a mercenary. Each game or contract you take on gives you a set number of 10 minute intervals (days) to complete your objective. Each day starts with a top down map of the huge battle that is taking place around you. You have to decide where you would spawn in and what outposts / bases you needed to take in order to move in on your objective. Once you dropped into the game you take control of a squad. If you ever got into a battle and were losing men fast you had to retreat and get reinforcements otherwise you would get annihilated and lose the whole contract. Even if you made good progress towards your objectives, things could go wrong in other parts of the battle you had no control over that force you to adjust your strategy. The whole game forced you to make tactical decisions, emphasized the importance of teamwork, and gave you plenty of face to face action with enemy forces. I've always dreamed of someone making a 3rd person shooter based on the same premise, but I doubt it'll ever happen.
Insurgency is another game that emphasizes the military realities you discussed. Teamwork is heavily encouraged, whether through microphones, text chat, or in game commands. All of the game modes are focused on team play -- there is no free for all mode or even a team deathmatch.
As many beginners would testify, running and gunning in a game in Insurgency is a surefire way to get stuck at the respawn screen. You have to play much more slowly than you would in CoD or BF and make more conscious and informed decisions about where and when to move and shoot.
Finally, the idea of limited supplies is literally embedded into the game. You start out with a finite weight you can carry, which leaves you having to make a decision on whether you'll carry a sidearm or another smoke grenade, or sacrifice body armor for an RPG for example.
I used to play Battlefield but lately I've been playing more Insurgency because even though it's more challenging, it's also significantly more rewarding to win a match in Insurgency (primarily because of the gameplay mechanics I listed above).
k
OIF vet here. One important thing you missed it that games should be structured so that it matters to you when your fellow soldiers die. We don't just execute with excellence because we need to accomplish the mission. We execute with excellence because we care about our team mates. We want everyone to come home.
"Games don't accurately show war" *Shows Spec-Ops: The line* that game pretty accurately sums up PTSD
Lillith's Vampires * Reminds you that there is a helicopter chase in between skyscrapers where you have an unlimited ammo minigun to rip through multiple enemy helos. *
While the story is amazing, and is much more "real" about the horrors of war, I wouldn't say it even gets close to "accurately depicting war".
TheMrVengeance I think that's just a cliche in videogames that LMGs/miniguns always have unlimited ammo, the rest of the game you're scrounging for ammo.
Lillith's Vampires True, but the game still is largely a one-man army power fantasy, not an accurate representation of war.
Back in the PS2 days, the SOCOM series was very popular and focused heavily on squad based tactics while still giving players the 3rd person war shooter experience... but players started craving faster gameplay and more action...
I just wanted to acknowledge Dave Arneson's contribution to the genre since I think he was the first to come up with the idea of depicting a war game through an individual's perspective. Making his players assault Castle Blackmoor was literally a game-changer and the precursor to Dungeons & Dragons which started the whole new format of Role-playing Games in addition to First Person Shooters.
I think that in some ways, not all, it is sort of the duty of fiction, in general, to portray experiences different from our own, & to help us understand different perspectives. Having a war game that depicts war accurately would certainly help many people who haven't experienced war understand how complex and difficult the situation actually is, even if it isn't the exact same thing as actually being in a war, as it can serve as a starting point for people to relate to those who have experienced war.
I think the genre RTS properly represents the mortality count.
there are more recorded kills in the CoD franchise than there are human beings on this planet iirc
Kris Mino
I think the deaths in Starcraft 2 are higher :)
Alexander Yordanov I still have nightmares about Zerg rushes.... *shivers*
I played a lot of Battlefield 2, in that game if you reload in middle of a magazine you lost the ammo in that mag, so it was almost essential to make your shots count and having your pistol as back up. It helped with the tactical thought that had to go when capturing Map points.
The Battlefield series is primarily about teamwork and strategy and part of that strategy is the distribution of (semi) finite resources.
For the record, while the basic load of ammunition for an American soldier is 7 magazines, few carry only that much. Most soldiers carry ten or more magazines in on their IBA, plus more ammo in their ruck. If they are mounted, or dismounted with truck support, they also keep additional ammunition in the trucks. While that ammo is by no means unlimited, there is a LOT of it and we shoot the piss out of it when the shooting starts. Real life isn't quite so intense as those games but a bigger difference is how distance is compressed and speed is increased in game worlds.
I remember a game back on the original xbox called Star Wars Republic Commando. I still have the game. In it you are a leader of a squad of four and the gameplay revolves around you commanding them in order to set up traps and take advantage of tactical positions in order to make certain engagements much easier, sure it may not have been as in depth as what you may be suggesting, but it was still fun and had some fast paced moments. The main draw, for me at least, was how you could do some battles completely differently by issuing different commands to your squad, especially on higher difficulties and added a lot of replay ability. I think a game like Republic Commando, if done right, can still be fast paced, while emphasizing teamwork, and still having a good story. I would recommend looking into it if given the chance for it is a good argument on how to represent war, while still keeping to a few of the current FPS mechanics. After all, realistic depictions of war are not out of the question, just whether or it can still be entertaining in today's market.
Teamwork - Battlefield 2 had a squad system, with a squad leader that then reports to a Commander.
Some of my favourite moments in the days of BF2 on public servers was when we all played as actual strategic teams
I find that the "total war" design to simulating war-games, where you move from TBS to RTS. this will be the best front to push realism or relevance to proper war, as I doubt we will ever let go of the run and gun style fps which has a vice grip over it's niche of the market.
I honestly believe that in order to make a true war game, we need to drop this stigma that games have to be "fun". We don't see Schindler's List to have fun. Games have a potential to be more potent than film, but it's being squandered by people that still think of video games as a play thing no different than Battleship or checkers.
Perhaps..
But who wants to cough up 60+ bucks to feel utterly depressed? At least with movies the most you're paying for is 15 dollars. Lastly, while Games have the "potential" to tackle more than just entertainment via fun. Video games are well... video *games* whereas nothing pinpoints what a movie is.
+ZayIvory7 I think like with movies games need to be engaging, not just fun.
***** I haven't bought a game for $60 in a while, and many others probably haven't either considering steam sales. The definition of "video game" is also just as loose, by the way. There was a huge controversy over certain games being called "games" where there were barely any reward systems implemented. Visual novels have stayed in that uncanny valley for a while. There are films like 2001: A Space Odyssey that lack conventional screenplay and cinematography, while there are also video games that lack conventional mechanics and reward systems.
cloak211
To explain more clearly what I mean by what defines a game compared to a movie is that nothing really pinpoints what a movie is. But video games are always meant to be "fun." Even if the game itself can get depressing at times its still trying to entertain you. Whereas a movie, that agenda is not so defined. A video game will always be just that at the end of the day, and that's why I don't feel its the same because no one is going to pay 60$ to feel sad.
"But video games are always meant to be 'fun.' Even if the game itself can get depressing at times its still trying to entertain you."
How do you define entertainment? Entertainment doesn't mean the same as fun -- if a piece of fiction is occupying your time and evoking a certain emotion, you are being entertained. There are plenty of games out there that seek to exclusively make your feel disgusted, existential, afraid, happy, etc., all without the guise of a contemporary approach to game design or a price tag of $60.
You're right in that people will steer away from things that aren't conventionally exciting. But if you look at both games and movies that aren't "fun," you'll see that, in general, ticket sales for those are no where near in the range of the next action blockbuster or AAA shooter that most people consider "fun." It's not so much an issue of perception of mediums as it is of what any audience demands the most -- to feel "good" walking out of the theaters / away from their game consoles.
For a different viewpoint on war in video games, This War of Mine gives a very nice perspective on the hardship faced by civilians in a war zone(rather than focusing on participating forces).
The ammunition point is pretty interesting. Outside of stuff like Scavenger perks, Call of Duty and Battlefield usually limit the player to less than that 7 magazines you mentioned. The issue is that the average player does not feel the importance and stress attached to that ammo count because of the meat grinder non-stop action which practically ensures that players will never run out of that ammo due to dying beforehand.
The scene where you pay respects to your dead friend in Call of Duty Advanced Warfare rings so hollow because the rest of the game is about how cool it is to have a robot hand and shoot people.
honestly i feel like counter-strike has a few interesting analogues to actual tactics, which are (highly)condensed into an entertaining package. For example, the player carries 3 magazines, and the guns in it have more recoil than those of any mainstream shooter, which encourages tap firing. The game rewards teamwork very handily, and its action is usually over quickly and divided by a lot of time spent watching, waiting, and securing good positions. again, the game is not realistic, but i just think its got some interesting analogues to actual tactics that are worth discussing.
I think Insurgency does a pretty good job at being realistic. Limited ammo. More things = heavier. 2 shots= death. Character freaks out when being shot. Being under fire blurs your vision, flicks your aim.
Why show several clips of Spec Ops The Line and never tell how special and relevant it is? This game is mandatory!
Full Spectrum Warrior on the original Xbox was a fairly authentic attempt to address most of what you bring up in this video. There are games that do try to be authentic, but they don't make the press so much, don't gross a huge amount and therefore cease to exist in mainstream discussion.
I'm seriously surprised that Full Spectrum Warrior was never mentioned in this video. It essentially satisfied a lot of the ideas presented in this video.
I like how they used clips of Spec Ops: The Line, which is, in itself, a commentary on modern war games and their one-man-army motiff.
This may sound stupid cause its a futuristic game but the joint universe of dust 514 and eve does an amazing job of showing war, you have people on eve doing interstallar warfare and planning. While on dust your part of the army. People from eve can contract people from dust as their army which feels like real life. Plus you'll only have limited rounds and one grenade and can only spawn limited vehicles. Over all feels more realistic than most war games
At the beginning levels of Battlefield Hardline, it pretty much handicaps your ammo capacity so that you shouldn't go in guns blazing...but then later drops that with more ammo and points in a level to get more ammo
CSGO:
Planning ahead proves useful
Relies heavily on teamwork
Ammo is scarce, some guns only get 3 mags, spraying is useless and a waste of bullets
Surprised there was no mention of This War of Mine. It's an indie game developed by 11 bit studio that places the player in control of three civilians who are trapped holding out on their own in the middle of a wartorn city. You build materials by day and scavenge and loot by night in order to survive. The game forces you into very powerful emotional decisions on the spot many times, such as letting a starving civilian into your group, at the risk that they may bring disease or become violent, on top of having another mouth to feed, to having to choose between trying to save a woman from a soldier threatening violence, or let the soldier have his way and safely scavenge the rest of the house unharmed. It would be nice to see FPS games touch on these kinds of subjects as well, putting the player in a combative role, and having them encounter non-combatants in a much more 'real' situation, instead of the simple "don't kill civilians or it's game over" that some games do. I was always deeply offended by the ending to Dawn of War 2: Chaos Rising, because if you choose to use any of the super-cool Chaos weapons and armor, your character is tried for his sins and forced to seek redemption in the Warp. I immediately played through it again without using these items, because I wasn't happy with the fact that my character had to pay for his sins, and I wanted to be able to have him save the Blood Ravens without being condemned for his means. And it felt so much better to receive that praise at the end.
"Games don't show the true meaning of war" he says as in the background runs a sequence from Spec Ops The Line arguably the best commentary on war a game ever has so far .
I was confused ever since the mentions of titles like _Fire Emblem_, about the defintion of "_war games_" used here.
I remember being playing dead space 1 for the first time, and I had completely missed the idea that I was expected to curb stomp every enemy for items. As I played I found that I every shot I took had huge consequences. As I played I was terrified, not just because of the (now looking back on it, lame) jump scares, but because whenever they occurred I had to mentally take stock of all my weapons and how I was going to get though the situation. As soon as I realized that I was expected to curb stomp enemies, the tension that I got from the game was completely removed and I no longed felt like I wanted to play the game any more.
Out of all the games that truly represent the tactical nature of war, Valkyria Chronicles is actually pretty accurate. You not only have to limit the movement of your troops to not get too far away from the group, but you also have to point them in a certain direction. On the paintball field during a massive U.S. Army drill, I was placed as a soldier on the edge of a patrol base. The big helmet limited my range of motion, so I couldn't simply spin around, especially in the prone. What worried me was that I couldn't cover my own base. Anyone could have simply snuck up behind me and done whatever they wished.
As a gamer and an only child most my life, I have a hard time trusting my fellow soldier. As a soldier, the only thing that kept me alive is my team members watching my back. The person who planned the patrol base set us all up to cover all possible avenues of approach, so the tactical side was there (and as an officer-in-training, I have also had to set up such bases), but I was only a small part of it.
I think games like Call of Duty: Ghosts try to convey that, popping in and out of planes, drones, helicopters, soldiers and tanks to show the different viewpoints of a single battle, but it still is very hectic compared to the reality which can be seen in documentaries like "Restrepo". I can remember working as a lowly gate guard when I used to be enlisted in the U.S. Navy, and how frustrating it can be to not see the full picture, which was a concern also echoed by the soldiers in "Black Hearts" by Jim Frederick. We are always part of some larger plan of action, and I feel that claustrophobia even now every time I become one cog in someone else's giant wheel. At least games like Valkyria Chronicles gives you the zoom-in, zoom-out perspective of the whole thing, with the mix of RTS and action. It's strange when most historically accurate games are so soundly outclassed by such a fictional action/RTS/RPG masterpiece.
There are a few games that blend both the commander view or team tactics with the first person shooter such as:
*C&C Renegade (or C&C Renegade X)* which has a huge focus on fighting as a team while fighting as a single soldier, you have a base with structures that if one of them is destroyed it cripples your side (defences destroyed = no base defences, Power plant = no energy == no defences, prices increased, barracks gone = no special units/special weapons, vehicle factory destroyed = no tanks). C&C Renegade gives incentive and reward people who are in the support role like keeping watch of the base for spies,rushes. Or spend most of the time repairing buildings and tanks, and since destroying the base is most of the time impossible to destroy on your own, working together on both the offense and defensive is the only to win the game. And most of the time its satisfying.
*Natural Selection* (although its humans vs aliens), it does have a commander/RTS view and soldier view/FPS,
and *Nuclear Dawn* which is very similar to Natural Selection but is Human vs Human focused with a commander/rts view and first person/fps view.
On a unrelated note: it'll be a matter of time for the Battlefield franchise to borrow the Base VS Base mode, and i hope they do because C&C Renegade's is quite fun. (Especially the hour(s) long ones, because you really want to win at that point)
Why is Doom always referenced to either the first fps or is said to have popularized it when Wolfenstein 3D was out before it and (I know at least in MY school), was wildly popular? I would personally give these accolades to Wolfenstein 3D all the way!
Same reason why people say Apple Iphones was the first conumer based touchscreen devices but reality it was a HP home computer. (Source: inventors.about.com/od/tstartinventions/a/Touch-Screen.htm)
It got a wider response in the market
blue2x2x good call
Matt Johnston Doom did popularise fps, wolfenstein was successful but Doom was way bigger
CATACOMB 3-D was the first FPS to be precise.
emikochan13 sure, Doom was way bigger, and more popular. But it wasn't what put the fps in the initial spotlight. Doom *further* popularized it, and made the genre take hold.
Radosław Hołdys I don't know that one, tbh. I'll take your word for it though ;)
Actually CS:GO might look like an fps at first, but playing some matches will show you how teamwork and clever tactics ALWAYS win against just aiming well and killing everyone alone.
Also, you've forgot to mention the Mount&Blade series, which is a brilliant (and the only?) mixture of top down tactic-planning and resource management, and an occasional bottom up Hack N' Slash battle.
The closest thing to what's being described would be the recently released Rainbow Six: Siege. 5v5 multiplayer tactical action that rewards teamwork above all else. A well executed tactical maneuver is highly rewarded and it forces teams to adjust after a victory or defeat. The unique game mechanics create really tense moments and it's the only MP experience where I've heard my team mates voice legitimate concerns for their safety, even though the it's "just a game".
I honestly thought you were gonna mention PTSD and other "non-combat" issues relating to war, but I suppose that's better off having its own segment.
One game I will say covers many of the aspects you talked about in the episode is Valkyria Chronicles. It involves large and small scale tactics (map screens vs 3rd person shooting) Limitations for ammo, units working cohesively together etc.
Really the most realistic fps I've played in terms of mechanics is probably "America's Army" which was developed by the U.S. Army. It tracks where the bullet hits you leading to various effects, and each shot can also lead to you bleeding out and losing consciousness in a realistic amount of time. ARMA is another highly realistic team-focused fps.
As a player who enjoys the tactical aspects of war-themed games, I'm kind of the target demographic for this episode. Disclosure- I'm not a veteran, but I've always found military history and battlefield tactics interesting.
Over the last decade or so, I've found myself playing fewer and fewer war games because they really all blend together eventually. It doesn't seem to matter if you're commanding Roman Legionaries or Elven Spearmen, it all ends up being different skins on the same skeleton. I find that the same goes for the shooters. Back in the day, I was happy to spend half an hour planning a building takedown that would only last a few minutes in Rainbow Six. Multiplayer in games like Ghost Recon and Operation Flashpoint should have made it more fun, but the hunger of most players to be the hero, the big guy at the top of the ladder with the most kills and best accuracy pushed these games to the fringes. What we're left with is a bunch of samey-same shooters with different skins.
Sure, you can find a good ARMA group like Shack Tactical or 15th MEU, but like an MMO guild, these groups demand commitment and time. A LOT of time. Unless you're willing to dedicate as much time getting good at ARMA as you are to leveling up your Orc Hunter, you're going to have a mediocre experience. And as one CoD fan told me when I mentioned the planning parts of tactical gaming, "Screw that, I just want to go shoot people."
Given that the psychology of war gamers tends to be very adversarial and most people don't want to learn how to play a more demanding game and then learn all the etiquette and rules of being part of a team, I see war games as remaining like the McDonalds of the gaming industry- sure it's dull, but at least it's consistent.
This video makes me think of the only two war video games that I've actually enjoyed: Conflict Desert Storm and Ghost Recon. Both use teams that you control, or can be played with additional players controlling the other characters, and both have far more strategic missions. Yes, there's shooting. But neither of them, at least from what I remember of them, made it all about the shooting. In fact, sometimes the missions were more easily accomplished when avoiding direct combat. I would love more games like this, as the strategy (and stealth) has always appealed to me more than the direct, adrenaline pumping action that most shooters are now known for.
While the Rainbow Six series is an fps with non-stop action, there is a tactical side to the gameplay, specifically the campaign. In Rainbow Six: Vegas 2, I find myself constantly redoing parts of some levels because I can't quite get right how to approach the enemies. They are strategically placed, some are hidden so there's the chance that there could be more enemies, and it's very easy to die; you can't just run in and shoot everyone before they shoot you. Taking care of your teammates and not putting them in entirely dangerous situations is also always an issue, so directing them towards cover is necessary before and during any engagement. While it does have as much strategy to it as a game like Fire Emblem, it does try to incorporate strategy into the quick "front line" encounters most prominent in fps games.
I was also very glad Fire Emblem was mentioned because I felt like it was a game that allowed the best of both mainly strategic and mainly action-packed games (specifically Path of Radiance, Radiant Dawn, and the other ones with cinematic fight scenes built into the gameplay). There were also a lot of characters that could be recruited from the enemies, there were allies that needed to be protected or helped on some levels, certain characters were not expendable while the game could and would continue without other characters, weapon usage and ammo are a concern, the player was able to play on different sides of the wars and experience the reasoning and story behind almost every character's decision to fight or not to fight, and it was very entertaining.
I know this comment is too late to be featured on the next video or even seen by Jamin, but I just wanted to say these things.
I would like to point out the "Ghost Recon" series as an exception. While the games do revolve around non-stop action, they do force you to think of tactics and focus on teamwork with your squadmates. The games make it impossible to win without ordering your troops around, and it makes for a remarkable experience that stands out amongst other, mundane titles in the genre.
What I would like to see is more games that combine fps and top down strategic elements. For example, capturing all the flags in a town means that region becomes controlled by your nation who is trying to control the whole world. Games like World War 2 Online, Heroes and generals, Planetside 2 let you either play as the general, the foot soldier, or both. There needs to more triple AAA games like this.
I'm surprised the last of us multiplayer wasn't referenced in this video, it's a good example of surviving with finite resources ect, and that game gets the adrenaline flowing and slight fear while playing against just 4 other players as apposed to +30 on battlefield and feeling like a super hero
Insurgency and Counter Strike Global Offensive are two that take a more tactical and team based look at war. Another good idea besides limited resources, how about a minimal HUD? And certainly don't give them Friend/Foe tags or a mini map. Let them rely on uniform recognition and accessing a map from their inventory.
“War is sometimes described as long periods of boredom punctuated by short moments of excitement."
― John H. Arnold
Valkyria Chronicles has a really good mix of top down strategy and third person shooter and each soldier had a class that was good at certain things and you couldn't just go around with a bunch of tank busters. You had to think about placement and who you were going to bring with you in a battle. Plus like the people in your squad were pretty fleshed out characters with back stories that made you really care about them and losing them is really hard.
"Two sides remain in standoff for several years in order to do battle for a decisive victory on a single day." - Sun Tzu
I would say that anyone looking for a game that shows the ugliness of war, play Spec Ops: The Line. (Also Kudos for that Red Alert footage, really brought me back! Great episode ^^ )
One thing to remember is that not all war games are about war but the tragedies of it . This war of mine would be a good example .
Spec-ops the line, a game showed repeatedly, is completely about the stress and PTSD a soldier can get. It's highly regarded for it, so I find it very odd you didn't mention it during that snippet.
The Brothers In Arms series was great at incorporating both action and strategy into a FPS. You were able to command a squad and give them a limited number of orders, and you got to know each of the characters's personalities so you didnt want them to die - plus it would impact your remaining tactical options if they die. You could also zoom out and see the overhead view/map to better plan your tactics.
That series might not be 'realistic' but its a lot closer to a simulation than most FPS games, and mixes a dose of authenticity into its fun gameplay. This combo should have been copied since, but only the Operation Flashpoint series has come close to matching BiA.
Modern warfare revolves around logistics, which is in a nutshell two things:
1. Providing a service
2. Moving a service from one place to another
These two elements are so complex there exists an entire industry dedicated to solving these problems. Put in the context of video games, an industry is dedicated to solving the player gameplay UI. We're not even getting into the hurdles of realistic OpFor AI, accurate materiel consumption modelling, or the many design decisions that actually make such an experience fun and compelling.
That last point is the most important. We basically don't do war in video games because war as a whole isn't fun. It's a task, a job, a duty.
I had the honor to serve in the USMC (United States Marine Crops) for five years and, during that time, toured Iraq for a year. I am also an avid war games player, both top down and first person. One thing that seems to always be ignored or, at best, glossed over, is the uncertainty of who your enemy is and the consequences of your decisions. From my experiences, the older looking farmer with the cow can be just as dangerous as the kid running up for candy. You never truly know who may try to take your life or the life of your comrades. At the same time, these people have families, aspirations, dreams, goals in life. You mistaking a random stranger for an enemy and dispatching him may cause one or more of his relatives try to kill you and your fellow marines due to your mistake. It's tragic, but it does happen. A game that not only highlights the tactics and realism of fighting and the uncertainty, loss, and fear of war would be phenomenal.
Clifton Sills It feels strange comparing your experience and then trying to think of gameplay mechanics that relate to not knowing who the enemy is and potentially creating more enemies from past mistakes. However, I think of the nemesis system in Shadows of Mordor that could potentially be put into a first-person shooter like Far Cry themed as a counterterrorist operation in a rural region. You have to gather intelligence on compounds throughout the region identifying those who are in the enemy faction and neutral factions. When you think you're sure, you plan operations and gather assets then you assault the compound. If you're right, there is one less enemy compound. The other surrounding enemy compounds remember who you killed in that operation if it was a high level compound they intensify their attacks on your base. If you're wrong, you've just made new enemies from surrounding neutral faction compounds. The people you wrongfully killed will be remembered by these neutral factions and now they are taking shots at your base or trying to track you down. I think a game maker could make a very interesting story without really having to write much because the player is the one creating all the drama.You still have the first-person shooter that is incredibly popular in videogames, but now you have some exploration of the combat operations that are common throughout the world. I think it's possible to have fun and experience something soldiers deal with consistently.
Clifton Sills I think it would be hard to do this in games because you lack a lot of the communication and planning that would go on / have happened in real life. You would have a general idea of where friendly forces are and where they are potentially moving. A game like ARMA does have this aspect in it. However having to identify friend or foe in a game of Battlefield or CoD where it's just a group of randoms running around squeaking about how they slept with your mom last night seems even more impossible than it'd be in real life.
Insurgency is very tactical. You have points to spend on your gear, you have limited ammo, and teamwork is pretty important.
"hide behind legend of Zelda lore" No not hiding behind, following. Thank you very much.
There are a few games out there like Red orchestra, operation flashpoint, insurgency that do a great job of combining teamwork and tactics. But again, they don't get much attention, as they don't have the same kind of action that call of duty type games carry. The game you are asking about exist, just harder to find.
I would love to see more realism in war games. That's probably why my favorite war shooters are from Operation Flashpoint Series.
"Project Reality" (BF2 mod) is the perfect example of how these rules work in a fps game
The depiction of war in game is just one facet of the long running issue of where in the simulation spectrum ( arcady < --- > realistic) should video games fall. I feel that history has shown that games which lean towards the arcady tend to be more profitable and hence tend to be the ones which companies make more often. Realism in games (in fact, the genre tends to be called Simulation) is more niche.
I think Planetside 2 strikes the perfect balance between large-scale strategy, teamwork and first-person fun. It's a shame it wasn't mentioned.
I've been talking about this for a while amongst my friends. I feel like a better representation of the true to life battlefield might have a positive impact on the gaming industry, especially in the eyes of the public. If we incorporated all of these ideas into the firefight scenario, along with more true to life damage as well as a single life... first, imagine how much more tense matches would be, and then think about how consequence oriented those war games would be.
I think it would help reinforce the idea to players that the battlefield is not a consequence free environment. We need more war games that have a more tempered and reserved idea about war, and less idealised in the hero-worship.
If games like these existed alongside the 'Call of Duty' and the 'Battlefields', it might blunt the stigma that people have against violence in games.
I don't think this has been done yet because the market is too niche for a developer or producer to risk it because this niche game needs a niche audience and I think that would be a combination of people like myself who enjoy a challenging game like Dark Souls that you can play for hours on end, and hardcore military fans like my friend who plays both Military FPS's and Strategy on a daily basis.
I think the first step towards something like this would be to combine a strategy and FPS game so you could command all your troops to do one thing as a general and then you actually go down and play as them to act out the commands, each time you died you would switch to a different NPC soldier or medic or anyone on the field that was an ally to you before you died.
Roller Coaster Tycoon is the most realistic war sim I have ever played.
I think full spectrum warrior was an interesting take on the genre in terms of balancing action and tactics. Success was largely based on positioning and approach, but the world was viewed from an intimate third person perspective.
Some games (most notably and recently Planetside 2) do in fact offer both top-down and bottom-up experiences as far war games are concerned: ultimately the team with the most organization and best planning WILL come out on top, and the notion of 1 v Everyone isn't as prevalent given the scale of the game.
Realistic in concept and execution, futuristic in design.
What about the psychological impact of combat? I'd love to see a system akin to MGS4's stress levels, where higher stress led to poorer accuracy, slower health regain, etc. Something like that could encourage more tactical gameplay without necessarily requiring it. It could even be tied into some of the tactical mechanics you mentioned- having fewer bullets or losing a valued team member in a firefight could increase the stress of the character and therefore the player, leading to better overall immersion.
You should have spoken about 'Full Spectrum Warrior' which you controlled 2 squads of troops that had limited ammo and trying to complete objectives.
Arma, Full Spectrum Warrior, Brother's in Arms: All these games are essentially what you describe, some more successful than others. Although I think planetside 2 is an interesting example that hits both sides simultaneously fairly well, can just run and gun if you want but if you want to be really effective need tactics and teamwork.
I think going almost full battle simulator from a first person view is great. It would be like the dark souls of the FPS realm. Though from what I can tell Red Orchestra is pretty realistic in the realm of shooters and WW2.
There is a thing called this war of mine, you know. I find that that game makes the best representation of war.
Well I think you've covered all your bases. We need "the Rambo" of Call of Duty, but we also need "the Platoon" of Spec Ops: the Line. I think we could stand to try and look at both sides a little more evenly and objectively, but it's not like the other side isn't there even if it's under-represented.
There are other aspects of war that games can address as well. In This War of Mine for instance the player controls the day to day activities of civilians caught up in the Bosnian War I believe. I'd like to see more games that tackle the parts of war that are not exclusively action based.
Personally, I think that if war games are going to have unrealistic fantasy elements like tons of ammo, they should go ALL OUT WITH LASERS AND DRAGONS and dat stuff
A game that seemed like it was stepping into both the top down General role and the role of the soldier was MAG. Granted you could only be in charge of and command strategic tactics once you ranked up enough, but it kind of worked because thats how it actually is. The more rank the more responsibilities you have as a leader. What was great was that you didn't just make tactical decisions from afar, you were also down there with the rest of the soldiers taking action. I thought it was genius. This game felt a lot more war-like because it WAS messy. You had to strategize and talk to each other a lot because situations could change for instance if the enemy team got a hold of a tank and decided to roll into the territory you are trying to guard. It had multiple player roles that weren't necessarily stuck as a medic or engineer or sniper. Just like when you are out there in the real war, if a medic has to pick up his rifle to fight he will or if a sniper has to patch up his buddy from a gunshot wound they will. In MAG you are limited by what you take with you out there. Its better to communicate and take tactical action than to go Rambo style, all solo, and guns blazing.
Games can totaly represent war in better ways. The whole video i was waiting for you to talk about "This war of mine" that takes a whole other look at how war can be portraid in games.
Two things I would like to see implemented in war games is less linear levels and civilians. The game doesn't need to be open world, but it would be nice if more levels gave you an objective and then left it up to you how you want to accomplish it. Say you have to clear out a building, you could kick down ever door and blast away, or you could throw some tear gas grenades through the windows and wait for them to come out. Better IA is a must for this kind of thing though, smart team mates that you can give orders too and enemies that flank, hide, surrender, and retreat. I also think having civilians in shooting games would help a lot. Not knowing if the people in a room are badies or civilians would put a whole new spin on door breaches. It would have to be random though, that way you would never know what to expect behind each door. And yes, killing civilians would be considered bad, but it would be nice if it resulted in something more then just a "mission failed" screen. Maybe it would lower your teammates respect for you, reducing their effectiveness in combat, and command would reprimand you by giving you bad weapons in the next level.
I'm currently at 5:24 in the video, and I think the best simulation of teamwork during combat can come from Unknown Worlds' Natural Selection 2, where the individual Terran Marine player is almost absolutely irrelevant and only serves as food for the aliens.
I'd like to see a game built from the ground up around tactics. Instead of a real war simulator, more of a decision-oriented tactical shooter that could still be immersive and entertaining.
DICE tried ammo limitations in BF4's hardcore mode. The only problem was that hardcore simply didn't have the community's appeal to the extent of what the other modes had.
Didn't he also kind of just describe counterstrike? It requires teamwork, tactics, and ammo conservation (for the silenced weapons and cz at least)
Jason Waataja i'm not really sure about the first one... i see pro players winning rounds all by themselves in that game every day, battlefield already is more about teamwork, but not much about tactics as it's more of just "put the majority here, half there and the reast on that position while also getting lots of medics and supports in infantry zones and engineers and snipers where vehicles pass" and that's all, what you really ask when asking for teamwork,tactics and limited ammo, is insurgency.
iota-09 When I play cs, I lose if I don't work with my team. I see what you mean though. I got insurgency from one of my friends for free. I haven't opened it yet, though.
What about XCOM: Enemy Unknown?
It has all the ingredients you've talked about, plus dire consequences when your soldiers die.
It feels like you didn't look hard enough.
Menashe Morobuse Just too bad that the game cheats, lies to you, and the RNG isn't RNG.
While I consider myself an (admittedly casual) fan of CoD, one of my favourite "war games" has got to be Spec Ops: The Line. Now, it's not a realistic depiction of war by any stretch and was often just as exaggerated as it's action-focused bretheren. What I loved about it, however, was its attempts at showing the true moral ambiguity in war. For most of the game, it's hard to tell who really is good or bad and you often find yourself having to make tough decisions for the sake of your mission. Again, it did push this aspect to the extreme but it was still interesting to see a shooter tackle such a controversial issue.
I'd say that SO:tL gets the emotions of war right, even though it doesnt get the gameplay quite like it.
And then there are games that do have more of the gameplay aspect of it- like Arma.
I wonder if we'd ever get a game w/ both.
Jamen, I'm a tad suprise you didn't mention Counter-Strike. Teamwork, tactics, and ammo conservation are the pillars that uphold the games, whilst not discarding the action and direct gunplay.
I we need a game with the moral impact of Spec Ops: The Line, gameplay of Insurgecy and Tactical teamwork of Swat/Rainbow Six
On the topic of diverse perspectives, I think the omission of Spec Ops: The Line, from this conversation is egregious. Overlooking the psychological impacts of war in general, and accidental atrocity in particular is one of the greatest sins of games that use war as their subject.
That said, as with movies, there needs to be a distinction between entertainment media and reality. There are very few people that really want to stay at war, and many people that want to play the hero.
On another note, If we want to talk about the reality and tedium of war, then think back on World War II Online and experiences like spending 4 hours in transit to a port city, boarding a ship, and crossing to an assault only to be sprayed down by machine gun fire as soon as you touch the beach.