Zero Punctuation: Enemy Front & Valiant Hearts: The Great War

[Blood Brain Barrier]

Gun control in America has been tried and every single time it has made gun violence in that area even worse. *cough*Chicago*cough* And you wonder why we oppose it?

Is it really "gun control" when you can just take a short trip over the state border and grab yourself a gun? Not to mention that an area already flooded with guns probably won't suddenly become safe overnight upon declaring their ownership illegal.

 

[Fsyco]

Well, most people would assume that no one would use the phrase "First World War" until there was another one to compare it with.

Why would people assume that? When you buy your first house, you're very much aware that you've bought your first house. Buying a second house is not necessary to that awareness.

When you get married, do you call her your "first wife" when introducing her to friends?

The original use of the term was "first World War", indicating that this was a new kind of warfare, and not necessarily anticipating that there'd be a second one (although many, many people accurately predicted there would be a second one).

Gun Free zones (including schools) are where most non-gang mass shootings take place. They very blatantly do not work. Aurora, Sandy Hook, Columbine... all gun-free zones

Statistics disagree with you on the second. Conceal Carry has been shown to DECREASE gun violence.

Society is based on trust. Gun bans are based on fear of guns, and on complete distrust of anyone who has one. Conceal carry is being prepared for the worst that could happen. That is EXACTLY how you live a good life and how you run a society.

Mind providing those statistics? You have to be careful when reading them, since it's easy for people to misconstrue data to fit their needs. I did a cursory search about the concealed carry thing, and apparently the studies seem to be inconclusive; some studies say it's true, others say it's not, and they seem nearly split even. And all my life I've heard all kinds of conflicting things about whether gun control actually reduces gun violence.

Not that I'm against people having guns or anything. I'm all for it. I think the actual problem lies with a whole lot of complex factors involving mental illness and American culture (specifically the way we construct masculinity), and that banning guns is just kind of treating a symptom without treating the illness. Aforementioned cultural reasons might be why gun control increases gun violence, since Americans are just much more accepting of violence than other countries. Supply and demand and all that. I'm not an expert in any of these fields, though, so I could easily be wrong.

 

[MrHide-Patten]

A game about WWI? What an interesting twist. Maybe even interesting enough to be worth checking out. I think it even got a recommendation.

really? you are blaming school shootings on gun control?

No, he's saying that because people oppose gun control so violently, we haven't been able to effectively stop them.

mental illness is the cause of the shootings.

I'm sure mental illness is only an American thing, like ridiculously high numbers of deaths by gunshot.

 

[RTR]

Is it just me or is there a faint sound of birds cawing around 2:20?

 

[Thanatos2k]

Gun Free zones (including schools) are where most non-gang mass shootings take place. They very blatantly do not work. Aurora, Sandy Hook, Columbine... all gun-free zones

Did you know most areas in which large amounts of people gather (schools, sporting events, etc) are "gun free zones"? So you're saying "most shootings where someone wanted to kill a lot of people happen at places with a lot of people"? MY GOD, you might be on to something. Oh wait, no.......

Statistics disagree with you on the second. Conceal Carry has been shown to DECREASE gun violence.

No it doesn't. And please don't quote any biased "research" by easily discredited puppet groups. It's a definitive fact that across the board countries with fewer guns have fewer murders. Guns kill people? Who'd have thought!

Society is based on trust. Gun bans are based on fear of guns, and on complete distrust of anyone who has one. Conceal carry is being prepared for the worst that could happen. That is EXACTLY how you live a good life and how you run a society.

The exact opposite of what you said is true. Guns do one thing - kill. Being "prepared for the worst that could happen" means an inherent mistrust of other people. And that's exactly the kind of paranoid fear that drives people to do stupid things with guns, like shoot someone in a movie theater for using their cell phone. Or nutjobs in Texas that shoot anything that moves on their "property."

 

[Olas]

A game about WWI? What an interesting twist. Maybe even interesting enough to be worth checking out. I think it even got a recommendation.

really? you are blaming school shootings on gun control?

No, he's saying that because people oppose gun control so violently, we haven't been able to effectively stop them.

mental illness is the cause of the shootings.

He raises an interesting point. Given that we have so many war games out there, why ISN'T the First World War depicted more often?

Because it's hard to create a power fantasy about a war in which you spend most of the time running and hiding for dear life from horrible machines of war.

Though with the growing popularity of bleak survival games, and horror games where you're completely powerless, perhaps games set around WWI could sell after all.

Lol Yahtzee, stick to the videogames "mate". Your grasp of American politics is tenuous at best.

Actually, him living in a country that drastically reduced gun violence through stricter gun ownership control and being born in a country that does not have weekly shooting sprees does make him rather qualified to rail on the bulshit that is America's fixation with owning their own person AR-14.

That kind of assertion is just as big a piece of shit as me saying that people who criticise Saudi Arabia's criminal laws against women have a tenuous grasp on the country's politics... mate.

You are a ranting lunatic, and so laughably wrong that I am not even going to bother debating this subject with you. Here's mud in your eye, mate!

So you're willing to go out of your way to tell him he's wrong, in the most childish way possible, but then won't actually form any sort of counter argument?

Someone's a sore loser.

 

[RicoADF]

I see this thread ending badly.

He raises an interesting point. Given that we have so many war games out there, why ISN'T the First World War depicted more often?

I would imagine it's due to the trench warfare employed so much during that war being too difficult to turn into entertaining gameplay. There's one of 2 scenarios: you man a machine gun and simply mow down people as they come out of the trenches, or you're on the other side, running through the onslaught, praying a bullet doesn't rearrange your brains.

Actually there was quite alot of non trench warfare, to problem is that's all people think of because of 1 front getting the most popularity due to how bad it was. Besides naval warfare there was fighting going on in other locations that involved more hit and run, urban war etc.

 

[JohnZ117]

Well, most people would assume that no one would use the phrase "First World War" until there was another one to compare it with.

Why would people assume that? When you buy your first house, you're very much aware that you've bought your first house. Buying a second house is not necessary to that awareness.

When you get married, do you call her your "first wife" when introducing her to friends?

You brought this back to my mind:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SlebFtgZPQ

Thank you.

 

[Miles Maldonado]

I see this thread ending badly.

He raises an interesting point. Given that we have so many war games out there, why ISN'T the First World War depicted more often?

I would imagine it's due to the trench warfare employed so much during that war being too difficult to turn into entertaining gameplay. There's one of 2 scenarios: you man a machine gun and simply mow down people as they come out of the trenches, or you're on the other side, running through the onslaught, praying a bullet doesn't rearrange your brains.

Actually there was quite alot of non trench warfare, to problem is that's all people think of because of 1 front getting the most popularity due to how bad it was. Besides naval warfare there was fighting going on in other locations that involved more hit and run, urban war etc.

This. Also, hell, World War I was the first war with air to air combat. Even with trenches, you have a lot more freedom to make a decent vehicular shooter than one would expect.

 

[VonBrewskie]

Did anyone else hear...crows or something in the background?

 

[Fsyco]

I see this thread ending badly.

He raises an interesting point. Given that we have so many war games out there, why ISN'T the First World War depicted more often?

I would imagine it's due to the trench warfare employed so much during that war being too difficult to turn into entertaining gameplay. There's one of 2 scenarios: you man a machine gun and simply mow down people as they come out of the trenches, or you're on the other side, running through the onslaught, praying a bullet doesn't rearrange your brains.

Actually there was quite alot of non trench warfare, to problem is that's all people think of because of 1 front getting the most popularity due to how bad it was. Besides naval warfare there was fighting going on in other locations that involved more hit and run, urban war etc.

That runs into the issue where it isn't what the audience recognizes and therefore they get confused. You know how most audiovisual media depict swords making noises as you unsheathe them and swing them around, when in fact that doesn't happen in real life? And then if someone doesn't do it, people complain? It's a bit like that.

Personally, I think with some effort, we could first get a good trench-warfare game, and then a more inclusive WW1 game that has some of the lesser known fronts and battles. You'd have to have a focus on guns AND melee combat, though, since trenches weren't conducive to the high-powered bolt-action rifles used at the time. So the player would have to run about whacking soldiers to death with a shovel, or stabbing them with their knives. Shotguns would also work, but there was a bit of a taboo against using them in warfare (the Europeans thought shotguns were rich-people weapons used for sport, and using one in combat was basically 'hunting' the soldiers) until the Americans came along. There were also SMGs and pistols, but IIRC many pistol rounds from around that era had issues with stopping power. So those would be of varying effectiveness.

Or, maybe it'd have to be some kind of action-strategy hybrid with day-night phases, where you set up barbed wire and MG nests and the like during the night phase, and then you go into the actioney combat during the day. And there could be an espionage system where you spend resources to learn enemy movements so you can plan accordingly, but the enemy could be counter-espionaging you.

Although I imagine getting these ideas to meld together well is alot harder than it seems.

 

[Zac Jovanovic]

The number of people, even here, that confuse gun control laws with banning guns is scary to me.

 

[C14N]

I think the actual problem lies with a whole lot of complex factors involving mental illness and American culture (specifically the way we construct masculinity), and that banning guns is just kind of treating a symptom without treating the illness.

This is pretty much true, at least the part about treating the symptoms. The underlying problem is how badly Americans want guns in the first place, not their legality. There is a sort of strange cultural paranoia in America, strange because nothing terribly bad has ever really happened there. There's never been a war from a foreign invader and there's never been a totalitarian regime, yet Americans as a nation seem convinced that being ready for those things is essential, more essential than things like good education or solid healthcare for all. You can even see the paranoia brought up frequently in the arguments in favour of gun control. I can't count on my hands how many times I've seen someone bring up the thought experiment scenario of "what if a bunch of guys in masks break into your house and rape your wife and children? Without a gun you just have to look on helplessly" as if that's a situation that, you know, happens. There are also repeated uses of the words "criminal" or even "bad guy" like the entire population falls neatly into either outstanding, noble, law-abiding citizens or basically a demon sent by Satan. Like people just pick a side and stick with it. That's why it's as simple as "criminals don't obey laws", everyone on that team is the same and once you've burgled a house for cash you'd might as well go all-in for grand theft, murder, extortion, rape, arson, drug dealing, human trafficking, kidnapping, running red lights and (where it's illegal) gun possession.

It all just seems like one big hero-fantasy. People WANT someone to break into their house, they WANT to see a guy held up at a cash register because now they can be John McClane or Rambo or whatever and save the day. They would rather live in the world where bad things happen and they can solve them violently than the boring world of Canada or Europe or Australia or whatever where most people don't get to see a crime first-hand between the womb and the grave. Just like how much more money is spent on trying to stomp out any outsiders who might have a problem with America than on domestic law enforcement, because the domestic issue isn't as simple as "America good, foreigners bad"; instead it would show that the country that kills the most Americans the most is America.

And that's why there aren't more games about WW1. It doesn't fall into the simplistic Hollywood "I'm good, you're bad so I get to shoot you and that's fine" narrative.

But that's really all just armchair psychology, maybe I'm just relying to much on my own perceptions of how I've seen this play out over and over.

 

[maxben]

A game about WWI? What an interesting twist. Maybe even interesting enough to be worth checking out. I think it even got a recommendation.

really? you are blaming school shootings on gun control?

No, he's saying that because people oppose gun control so violently, we haven't been able to effectively stop them.

mental illness is the cause of the shootings.

So why not put restrictions on gun access for the mentally ill?

*NRA wackspin
"But that would encroach on the mentally ill's right to keep and bear arms"

Right, so we have established that there are people who frankly shouldn't ever have access to firearms, but you give them firearms regardless because of the 2nd amendment.

Great plan buster.

Have you ever actually heard this argument from the NRA? I highly doubt it.

No, the problem is that the USA has a shit history with regards to Mental Illness. You can't just say "anyone mentally ill can't have a firearm" because literally 25-30% of americans are mentally ill at some point during any given year. Most of those are never diagnosed, and most recover from their illness given time.

It takes a LOT of time and effort to prove someone is mentally ill and a danger to themselves and others. Time and effort that must come from the mentally ill persons' friends and family - which are far more likely to try and resolve the problem themselves - if they even notice it. We lack the fundamental foundations for even building a nation-wide mental health service; and an aversion to anything even resembling starting one.

There is a HUGE social stigma when it comes to mental health problems - and suggesting that someone should go see a shrink before they do something - say, like getting a driver's license (vital IMO) or buying a firearm (literally an enshrined right in the constitution) is considered little short of defamation of character. I had been hoping that this would begin to shift due to all the obviously crazy people causing harm - but no, all I see are people whining about how guns are killing people and how assault weapons (which have claimed only a tiny fraction of firearm fatalities in the US) need to be banned. I might even support that last one, even going against statistics, if "assault weapon" wasn't defined by how scary something looks.

I agree, which is why I refuse a medical check when getting insurance. What are you insinuating? That my insides don't work perfectly! How disgusting.

The only way to fix a social stigma is to acknowledge, not hide it under the rug.

 

[Tim Chuma]

Tell those crows to piss off. CAWWWWW!

I thought there weren't many WWI games due to their not being as many weapons? There was a Battlefield 1942 mod that had ANZAC forces.

There are many tactical games that model around that period including the Crimean War. Was one where you had to micromanage down to how many bullets your soldiers have in that you have to make the bullets before they are fired and supply them.

 

[Exterminas]

That mouse trap metaphor was brilliant. I think I am going to steal that for the next time I teach about WWI!

 

[Proverbial Jon]

Cor, one mention of gun control in the US and the thread is derailed from the first post.

What I really want to know is: just how realistic is it that a war journalist should take such an active role in the war? I haven't played the game but the trailers seem to peg old Brenda as a man of the people who wants to spread the stories of the brave people that fought in the war, then the game appears to place the player in the journalist's shoes... doing most of the actual shooting I presume.

I've watched Jesse Cox play some Valiant Hearts however, it seems like a charming enough little game and quite different from what we're used to with regards to shooters. A refreshing change if nothing else.

 

[Nazulu]

This was a really good episode, even the credits were funny. Though as soon as you said Uplay, I had to hang my head in despair. It's such a fucking atrocity. I hate it so much.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

World War 1 was originally called The Great War or The War to End All Wars. This obviously didn't happen.

Except that it did:

The term "First World War" was first used in September 1914 by the German philosopher Ernst Haeckel, who claimed that "there is no doubt that the course and character of the feared 'European War' ... will become the first world war in the full sense of the word."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I

People weren't stupid back then (well, some people were, but just because it was many years ago does't mean that people were simple-minded).