Modern conflict and games

[Chilango2]

As previously pointed out, an ongoing war, especially a controversial one, would be a minor PR nightmare for a company to try and tackle.

That and the nature of the war itself can make a game somewhat difficult to make, because of a lack of a compelling narrative hook and familiarity to the audience. WW2 is so overwhelmingly present because its familiar territory. The stories of Vietnam, Korea, etc are much more ambiguous.

 

[Kukakkau]

<

 

[Kukakkau]

ok i have to say iraq at the moment is not a war. its just oppression of a devolping country sure saddam was a dictator that needed to be removed but thats been done.
and there is a game on the topic Conflict Desert Storm II and nobody really cared about it depicting it.
i would say it isnt bad to have a game depict a current war as long as it doesnt bathe the player in patriotism"were doing this for America" since its always america in these games and depicts the downsides to the war - how many games when a teamamte dies in a firefight do you honestly go "shit man down"

 

[werepossum]

As a veteran (twice) of the Iraq war, I call out to gamers and devs as to why the subject of war (as it is happening) is so avidly avoided.

We can make games about Vietnam. Most American politicians don't even like to talk about this one.

We can make games about WW2, and it's not even taboo to show this from the Axis side (As Croshaw calls them, an unambiguously evil foe) Not to mentions, the most bloody conflict in human history.

Every major conflict worth mention since Hastings seems to be represented in games, but not since Thermonuclear War (holy fuck I'm old) has a current debacle been represented.

So obviously this has sat on the desk of distributors for a while now. COD4, we move the conflict one country to the west. Conflict: Desert Storm, we move it back in time. It's almost criminal the avoidance...

Well, what do you all think?

First, thank you for your service.

Second, I think Kuma War does that on the PC. IIRC they take current news events and hotspots and either re-create the battles, or create a reasonable battle scenario in that hotspot. Maybe both, I don't really remember too much of what I've read about it. Personally I've not tried it, even though I love war FPS's, because it's just too soon. I couldn't help but think of the families grieving over the same soldiers I'm brutally gunning down - it would ruin the game for me. When it attains the crisp impersonality of history, I'd feel comfortable with it. For that matter, I'd just as soon use fictional settings. Invading the nation of Arabethia to search for terrorists makes me more comfortable than invading Iran or Syria.

Some of GW2 would make an excellent video game; for instance, 2nd Marine (I think) Expeditionary Brigade's battle for the An Nasiriyah bridges. It has everything a good video game could want. The Americans are horribly outnumbered, but much better armed and supplied. The bad guys (Saddam Fedayeen) are willing to die in large numbers (think horrible AI meat puppets.) You have a (largely) grateful civilian population. It's urban combat, but also with more open areas, rescue and recovery missions, emergency relief of the civilian population, etc. It's just too soon for me. Also, I think the chances it could be made without a pro-war/anti-war message beating you about the head and shoulders would be about nil.

 

[stevesan]

i'd love to see a game about iraq. relevant debate through a modern medium. it would be great.

i think only academics and indies would touch things like this. i don't feel like the big gorillas of the industry have the motivation to do this. it wouldn't make much money, although it would be culturally significant. but cultural significance never sent anyone's kids to college.

 

[REH]

You don't see many games that emulate contemporary conflicts because this approach would require game developers to wish for exciting source material to come out of the conflict.

You'd have EA scanning the news, hoping for some kind of Falluja-type shit to have gone down the night before. Good fodder for the next downloadable content pack.

Finished wars cause no further casualties. You can mine them for video game material without waiting expectantly for more people to die.

Plus, what do you do if you play through an emulation of a battle that happened very recently and then you run into some dude who got his legs blown off in the real deal. What do you say to that guy? His wounds are still raw.

I still think that games about current conflicts should be made (and played), but they have far more serious implications than games about past conflicts.

 

[Necrohydra]

Yeah, it's been said already, but I'll say it again - it won't be done unless a gaming company out there is willing to step on some toes with the issues. And unless they see a potential profit in that, it probably won't be done, either.

 

[Altair-Ego]

I want to see an Iraq game as much as the next, but then the Dems might say we're Encouraging Bush's War or some bullshit.