The game that caught the most backlash (that I saw) was Grand Theft Auto 3... mainly because it featured hookers that would get into your car and give you a 'happy ending' (not that you could see it, but it was suggested by the car rockin') and you could then get out of the car and beat her to death and get your money back. There have also been other games depicting vulgarities and swearing that caught some minor public outcry. Then there was the big hooplah over BMX XXX where you could maybe see a real live boobie if you were good enough at the game... unless you had the PS2 version of course.

So it's quite obvious that America is hung up on sex and even though that's how all of us got here in the first place, it's certainly not something to be discussed or shown without someone getting their panties in a twist over it.

Since there have been a slew of violent games in the past 5 years or so - and with the graphics getting progressively better, the violence of course gets more graphic - it seems that nobody seems to really mind much. I mean, there was some muttering about Soldier of Fortune because you could dismember someone, but nobody really says anything about the military themed shooters. This is what has always puzzled me... yes, I realize this was a long road to my point and question...

So why is it okay to recreate an actual historical war in a game setting? Does that not disrespect those who fought and died in said war? What's the statute of limitations on a war before you can exploit it? I know there's usually movies a few years following the conclusion of a war... and forever onward. However, movies seem to at least try to be responsible and respectful or are at least making a statement (and those usually aren't the ones that come out right away). It seems though that games are neither respectful nor responsible. They seem to simply make the violence and killing something fun to do.

I'm sure I sound like an old soccer mom, but I'm not saying I feel this way - I actually find war themed FPS games to be a lot of fun - I guess I'm just being a devils advocate here for the purposes of starting a discussion.

I can remember a time when there weren't really any war-themed fps titles to be found - and if you found one, it was crappy. I remember thinking it would be a really good subject to base a shooter on. Then they started coming in - at first it was a slow trickle, and now it's a total flood of them.

Ok - let me approach it this way - we have games based on horrific war battles where many many people died. Does Disneyworld have a VietnamLand? Can you go to Six Flags and ride on the Holocaust Coaster? No. And how long before we see a video game based on the WTC disaster? Sure, we had alot of fireman games come out soon after that event, but none were really related to it as it was more of a side-effect of the firefighter=hero idea that the media pushed. How much further can these FPS games push the envelope before they start pushing peoples hot buttons?

Anybody know anyone who was in vietnam? what do they think of these games? Anybody here lose someone close to them in vietnam or some other war? How do you view these games?

Interesting comments. I think it's the approach these games take. Call of Duty, for instance, is clearly inspired by "Band of Brothers" and the like, and is designed to create a realistic recreation of actual battles in WW2 that highlight the heroism of the allied forces.

Something like Battlefield: 1942 on the other hand doesn't really feel like real war. It feels like a video game where everybody is dressed like WW2 soliders. It's fun, but you never have a sense of being in an actual war.

Vietnam is a tough topic. It's viewed as almost taboo by many of the people who lived through it. And I must admit (although I'm only 25), I still had reservations upon hearing EA's announcement of the game. Is it right?

In WWII, there was clear moral imperitive duty. The Nazi's were pure evil. That's why there are 5 million WWII FPS shooters out there. Killing Nazi's never gets old.

In Vietnam, the morality of that war is much more murky. The passion that Vietnam raises in people like my parents, is one of sadness and rage. They would probably find the concept of a game like BF:Vietnam nauseating.

I don't think there is a right answer here. Part of me doesn't know if exploiting hundreds of thousands of people's awful experiences is worth you and me having upgraded maps, guns, and vehicles.

At the same time, I am a gamer, and I do want to play it.

I remember playing "Medal of honor" on my PC when it came out. When the "Storm the beach" mission started and we actually started running on the beach I litterally crouched and froze under cover, hearing screams and explosions and watching an NPC near me doing the same and praying...

For a while I actually forgot I was in a game, and that says a lot. In a silly way it made me feel for those men who truly fought and died in that war. Hey, when I died in the game I could start over, but they didn't.

I can imagine my grandfather gunning down a Nazi and yelling "I PWN J00!!11!"

Is it perhaps the era? WWII games have that "historical" sense because of the time they take place. BF: Vietnam is using an event that is still very recent to a lot of people. Don't forget about the Black Hawk Down addition to the Delta Force series; something that was a very sore subject for a lot of folks.

I think that the time it take for an event to be... well, not forgotten, but able to be dramatized or discussed in a "historical" sense is getting shorter. I've noticed that these TRAGIC EVENTS seem to make their way into games and mini series sooner than they used to.

Also, Trigger, the "Holo-Coaster" would have been a much better name for your Nazi Disneyland ride!

A bigger head scratcher is how MOH: Rising Sun sold so well in Japan.

I WIN! I KILLED GRANDPA!!! YAAAAAAY!!

Vietnam may be more "removed" from the general public now as we have had a couple of "conflicts" or wars since then, primarily 1991 & 2003/2004 in Iraq. Maybe those events are making it "ok" to make games about Vietnam now. (Even though there are now a couple of games about the wars with Iraq)

May also be one of those things like it being "okay" (I'm not saying that it is actually okay, so no comments on my being an Amish bigot, ok?) to make fun of Amish people on the radio or the internet since not to many of them are listening or checking out the net and therefore they are not complaining about it and no one else is going to complain on their behalf. Most gamers are well below the age of Vietnam veterans, etc so large numbers of them are not probably seeing these games and actively complaining about it.

Where are my Korean War games?

Well, there's that way to look at it, but then at the same time - it brings to memory all of the atrocities from that era. It's not just killing nazis, it's making a fun time out of something that had to happen because millions of jews were being murdered. I don't know if I'm explaining that thought right - I had it right in my head and then kinda lost it. Anyway, I agree with you to a point, but there's neither rememberence nor respect paid to the jews that died in this. I mean, we've had POW video games where you have to escape a nazi concentration camp not unlike Hogans Heros, but it's not as a jew, it's as a captured soldier. It's like that aspect of the war is completely absent. Not that this is a bad thing, because that would just make it really depressing rather than fun. In Wolfenstein, the nazis are doing freaky experiments and messing with curses and whatnot and you have to kill them and steal their gold - it has nothing to do with the holocaust. It just seems kinda irresponsible. It's like the Nazis are just evil, but they don't say why... not the real reason anyway.

I think Nazis have always been good video game fodder... long before the recent upsurge of military based shooters. I doubt it'll be too long before we get an Operation Iraqi Freedom game. Hell, there probably already is one.

Of course, you can go back a few years and see the most offensive videogame of all time: Custer's Revenge.

I like games, I like hookers. I think that's a good mix.

Let me pose this question - all these games are typically placing you in the position of an American (or sometimes Brittish) soldier facing some other country that speaks some other language. How would you feel if some other country created a video game that places you as an Iraqi or whatever and you have to mow down hoardes of American soldiers.

Sure, there's Counterstrike - Terrorists vs. Counterterrorist, but it's all so anonymous. I remember playing it around 9/11 and the comments thrown about were pretty politically charged during the game... people taking sides for a political reason rather than because they prefer one weapon selection over another or strategic spawn point over another.

I mean, let's say some bright young computerfile in Laos decided to develop a FPS where you could invade the US and drive through cities and suburbs and blow up every pedestrian in sight or just fly by and drop 600,000 tons worth of bombs on the landscape. Would that offend any of you more than the current crop of games do? How would that make you feel? Would you wanna play it? I dunno. *shrug*

They don't mention the atrocities of the Holocaust because they can't. It would be amazingly inapropriate to include the murder of 10 million people in a video game. It's hard to even do in a movie, and not catch heat for it. Even Spielberg got shit for making "Schindler's List" from people who consider the Holocaust so taboo that they find it offensive to have actors simulate the actual victims' experiences.

It would just be another GTA knockoff

I don't know I think given that these are (mostly) M rated, its an adult choice and you vote with your $$ by either buying it or not. If enough people like it and buy it to make it a success and it is sold to adults, its not an issue with me.

It's the Forgotten War.

It does seem weird hearing about Battlefield Vietnam coming out. Doesn't really seem right compared to Battlefield 1942 (which I haven't yet played still since my computer's so old).

At the same time, they've already put out not 1 but 2 Conflict: Desert Storm games of all things. Not to mention other similar games.

Still, I think in the end I tend myself to prefer the more ambiguous "military" titles -- Counter Strike, Ghost Recon, etc.

Is it disrespectful? Sure it is.

Do I enjoy playing these games? Sure thing.

Would I feel embarrased playing one of these games around a combat vet? Yes, I would.

How disrespectful is it, really? And why? I mean, you've got all these war movies depicting certain battles down to the letter as told by those who lived through it... then some of these films actually feature interviews with those soldiers. Is it due respect and homage or is it exploitation with their consent or is it something else?

I was watching Band of Brothers tonight (I picked up a sweet DVD set of it from Korea) and apart from it being quite good, I couldn't help but be reminded of playing through Medal Of Honor and the expansion packs especially. I kept thinking how much these scenes were just like in the game. I know that alot of care and research went into making Band of Brothers, and I can only assume that as much care and research went into making Medal of Honor because it seems so very accurate (when compared to other material that is reportedly accurate enough - I wasn't there). So perhaps such a game does come out clean.

So what is it about the Vietnam War that makes a game about it seem less respectful? Time? The reason we went to war? The outcome? Movies come out about this war that have a message as do movies that are simply there to entertain while the message is second. There are dozens upon dozens of movies based on Vietnam. I remember back just before military based FPS games started to hit, there was a Vietnam themed FPS game that was complete shit - like it was made by the same people who made that crappy deer hunter series of games or something. Nobody seemed to pay much notice to it - but I remember thinking this same thing about the morality of the whole thing.

The thing is - Battlefield 1942 and Vietnam are games that are just basically online skirmishes that don't seem to follow any real historical signifigance outside of the war they are themed around and they don't seem to pay any respect to those that fought and died and it just seemes to be a theater for killing and fun - like watching some kids having fun playing some yardball with army helmets from dead soldiers as the bases and using the wood stock from a dead soldier's rifle as the bat. Like some sort of artistic juxtaposed irony or something. And Battlefield gets nothing but praise and accolades and nobody seems to bat an eye about it. Not that they should or shouldn't - I'm just wondering if maybe someone should. I kinda expect there to be some fanatic somewhere with a bug up his/her ass about such a thing.

I mean, with GTA? catching so much heat over 'simulating' sex with a hooker (and you don't even see any of the 'goods') - why hasn't there been just as much if not more heat on Battlefield which is equally - if not moreso - violent as GTA3? The only real difference I can see (if I squint to avoid the details) is the suggestion of sex. Are we that uptight? (rhetoric, I know we are that uptight).

Maybe I'd just like to see someone get ruffled feathers over something other than a boob or a car rockin' with a hooker in it. Like - was there any hubub over Black&White? You get to play as a god controlling people. I think I remember there being a little heat on Messiah where you play a somewhat evil little cherub angel who posesses people to make them do things (underrated game IMO - it was pretty good).

What if some developer decided to come out with a FPS where you play an Angel armed to the hilt with weapons and called it 'Killing For Jesus'? - I already know of a perfect theme song for it. You could go around as an angel (of death) and kill defenseless humans whom you wish to smite and you could burn their villages and have to battle demons or some such thing. I'm sure the title alone would be enough to stir up trouble. It seems some of the people who are likely to complain about such things as video games rarely take the time to pay attention to what they are about - more of a 'book by the cover' type.

Anyway - that's alot of typing, sorry. I babble. The thread should've been called Moral Questions instead.

I disagree that in all the WW2 shooters you are shooting "evil Nazis." In games like MOH and COD, you are generally shooting German soldiers...who were regular people just like the Allied soldiers. Obviously, that's part of war, and as a whole the Allies were wearing the white hats, but from battle to battle it's not so cut and dry "good vs evil."

It would be interesting to have a game where you could put the enemy in a position to surrender.

Oh, I totally agree with you Groucho... someone said "evil nazis" and I went with it.

There are a few games that have surrendering enemies - some tom clancy games have this as an objective on certain levels and Metal Gear had it so you could get them to put their hands up. True Crime allows you to shake down and arrest people (or murder them) and awards you accordingly.

you have a generation of people who grew up watching movies that showed great deeds, clear cut choices of right and wrong, higher motives, "love", etc. and you realize that life is a lot more mundane than that - get up, go to work, go home... some people can no longer appreciate real life.*

if that means that they vicariously live their lives thru games, where YOU are a HERO (or anti-hero), it makes sense to me. and b/c it is virtual, we are willing to forsake what is socially acceptable. in real life, it isn't ok to beat up a hooker... but in GTA3, sure, why not? it's not real. the morals of video games do not equal the morals of life.

this doesn't mean the person is bad, or will become bad. frankly, w/ or w/out video games, people have evil thoughts constantly but do not actually do them.

it doesn't help that we are in an ambiguously moral war right now; that many people feel helpless against terrorism; that umemployment is rising; that our debts are increasing and the economy sucks. in all cases of a depressed time, escapism has always been there. movies like the Passion of the Christ and the Alamo will do very well right now b/c people are looking for inspiration and hope.

so yeah, to put it simply, you have people who will never do anything heroic in real life... if they can be a superhero in Call of Duty, then they get some sense of accomplishment.

--
vietnam is a bit more difficult b/c it did not offer us a clear moral imperative. i think that's why it is less popular a subject for video games.

Dunno, I have to admit (guessing since I haven't actually done it) that I'd probably feel pretty awkward sitting next to my Grandfather (if he was still alive) and watching SPR or perhaps more relevant to his experience -- Thin Red Line or Hamburger Hill.

Oh man, I thought I was the only one who remembered that game. That was just so bad on so many levels. The scary thing was, I had a friend who somehow got ahold of a copy when we were kids, and we actually played it. That game really gave "offensive" a whole new meaning.

1) The natives would throw a ****ing fit and start killing everything in sight. They hate each other.
2) If it didn't cost much to build and turned a good profit, I'd go

Don't know if anyone has seen screens from an upcoming FPS called Shellschock '67 or someting like that... I think it looks and sounds like a really gruesome version of Vietnam, much worse (worse in the context of this thread) than BF:V or the others...