Historical-War Based Video Games ~ Good-Bad-Worthwhile?

[rabu]

I obviously haven't thought of every possible question that might be relevant, or the best way to put them.. just wanted to get some thinking and discussion going here, if any one is interested.

 

I think about this subject off and on and am curious about how the rest of you feel. We probably have a wide age range of players here, although I suspect most of us here are older and more interested in the historical element of OFF, but I'm sure there are younger players interested in that or leaning more toward the more game aspect of OFF and other war games.

 

So.. this is open to any one's input, thoughts and opinions, not really a poll per say.

 

Lots of interesting forum members here so am expecting some interesting comments.

[catch]

A tough one Rabu Didn't vote because it can't be defined by any one of your options imo. There are positives and negatives. OFF for instance has driven people to seek more about WW1 and discover the truth in all its ugliness (the gorgeous aeroplanes excluded of course) and has given them new respect for the combatants on all sides along with the abject futility and waste of war. That's a good thing. And they've learnt something.

 

On the other hand, some of the more unbalanced (or just plain dumb-arses) in todays society are probably influenced by violent war games and perhaps can't separate reality from fantasy and may act out their fantasies. Desensitization is another buzzword for it. But then again that could simply be a heap of theoretical psyco-babble encouraged by the greedy, unscupulous therapist buffoons who love conning naive and/or trend-driven people out of vast amounts of money. Hey it's a business already.

 

So I don't think violent war games are necessarily a big threat on their own except perhaps for a very small minority. The big problem in todays society for me is the scourge of potent back-yard hatched "designer" drugs taken in tandem with violent war games or racing sims and the jerks, drug-addled and brain-dead trendies that think they can replicate their heroic actions in real life.

 

I don't know it that answered your question(s) but it's a start lol ....

[rabu]

26 views and one reply..hmmm.. either a lot are afraid to express themselves or have nothing to say? OK, your's would nicely fit in, "I have another opinion, which is.." and I thank you for answering, it covers a lot of ground and is well thought out too.

 

I actually don't expect an answer, or one answer, I doubt there is one, I just would like to see what people think, or which way they tend to lean in thinking, and this isn't a quiz, just trying to introduce a subject to talk about and see what people think or have thought about the general subject of this.

 

Hope others will chime in.

[Flyby PC]

Its more complicated than a one tick answer Rabu.

 

I can only speak personally, but simulators which go out of their way to put similar issues in your head which the real servicemen had to face for real are a very good thing. I know they cannot recreate everything, but they are faithful in what they can.

 

As for shoot 'em ups and entertainment games, I don't know. They don't interest me, but I don't see them as harmful either. When I was a nipper, we'd all run about for fun playing Jerries and British with pretend machine guns. We'd all kill each other millions of times, shooting and bayoneting each other regularly, and all just for a laugh. Are PC games any different? Well yes, less social interaction with your buddies, much less exercise, and more powerful images of violence, but 'different' isn't necessarily all bad. As the saying goes, all things in moderation....

[UK_Widowmaker]

I voted "It depends on the War Game"

 

I don't like the glorified modern 'Terrorist Takedown' sort of games...I think that is quite revolting tbh..as there are people dying doing it for real today.

 

War Games such as OFF and the Total War series however, I believe act as a History lesson, for young people..which is a good thing

[Olham]

I didn't know what to click really, Rabu, sorry - I rather try to put it into words.

 

Many war and combat games seem to be like ego shooters to me.

What I think makes a combat/war sim interesting and gives it a value,

is when you can't easily win it by marching through like a super-heroe.

When you have to learn to survive and how to use your weapons.

When you have to learn, that you can never win it alone.

When you have to experience, that you can't always win; that others may be as good at it

as you are. Like in sports - you have competition, you try and give your best, but you must

accept that there may be others, who are better.

 

About historical sims like OFF or RoFl (sorry, couldn't resist!) I like it, when you get a feeling

for the whole context. When you learn to know the many details of such a conflict.

And when you learn to know and sometimes even admire your opponent for his courage,

his deeds, his way to fight.

 

OFF gave me a deeper insight into WW1 air combat, and taught me a deep respect for the men

even from the other side, who were fighting under the same, and sometimes maybe far worse

conditions than "my German pilots".

[themightysrc]

I'm broadly in agreement with Olham, and even more so with UKW.

 

Wargames are pretty distinct, I'd say, from games that are predicated upon a war or conflict, but which are simply vehicles for a bit of ill-judged willy-waving. From my POV, such games devalue and belittle the sort of experiences that are available in 'proper' wargames - after all, if the point of the game is an enormous, gory pile of dismembered corpses, then it's difficult to see what it actually adds to the human condition. Whether such games are inherently harmful is very much a moot point. I wouldn't want my kids playing them, as I think they convey some pretty nasty messages along the way.

 

'Proper' wargames (as I'd call them) are a different kettle of fish. Such games can be fairly abstract - I'm thinking of Midway, an old largely non-graphical wargame based upon the battle where 99% of the 'action' takes place through reports from subs, scouts, bombers, etc concerning damage to vessels that you've sent your forces to eliminate. Superbly atmospheric, because the visuals and drama are mostly of your own making. Above all, it's a history lesson. OFF falls into the category of 'proper' wargaming by some way, whilst being (in effect) a first person shooter of sorts. However, the nature of the action, its setting and the authenticity it strives for also propel it firmly into being deeply historical, and precisely the sort of game that tempts one to learn far more about the war, not just the aerial conflict, but the whole thing, in order to put the game itself into a historical context.

 

So my vote went to 'depends on the game', as you might expect.

 

Cheers,

Si

[OvS]

Definitely depends on the game. You can learn a lot about history, weapons, tactics, strategies, etc... but you can also learn alot about death, carnage, destruction, and violence.

 

I think the best over-all FPS depicting the truths of WWII was BIA: Hell's Highway. The worst was the COD series, where it looks great, feels great, but its straight on carnage without much regard for thinking.

 

OvS

[Vasco]

To my mind wargames are a sanitised version of what they attempt to represent.

 

The movement of counters, models or pixels in chess-like manoeuvers; turn-based or real time convey nothing of the experience of warfare. They are a study of the mechanics of battle for any given age or engagement and as such, a useful tool for historical study but for all that; incomplete.

 

Simulations that put you in the body of a person involved in such conflict convey far more of the experience of warfare, limited though it may be. Any simulation that makes the palms sweat on the controls, induces the conditions of stress and fear or the terrible sense of loss that comes with a falling of a comrade is far more valuable. When you experience the emotional element of being in combat the lesson is far better learnt.

 

This is the reason that OFF succeeds where other WWI simulations fail. Without the atmosphere and the sense of continuity conveyed by the simulation, without the sense of loss felt when the character falls to an unlucky shot, avoidable accident or lapse in concentration from being at the controls for too long, the experience is worthless and sterile; the user learns nothing.

 

Although the full horrors of war cannot be simulated with the technology currently available on a home computer, the beginings are there. One day the ability to totally immerse oneself in the experience may become available, but I would hardly call that 'entertainment' and as such is unlikely to be reproduced within a medium available to the masses. Instead the value of such wargames and/or simulations depends on the real world experiences of the player and the reaction it triggers within that individual. The young and/or inexperienced cannot visualise what it may be like to fall thousands of feet at the controls of a disabled aircraft or lose friends that have become as close to you as brothers, but some of us can and that is why the value of a wargame is different for each user.

 

The lessons of history can be conveyed in the writings of those who experienced them at the time at the time far better than analysis of those who came later. Luck or judgement? Only those who who were there will ever know with certainty. Good simulations such as OFF will only give us a gross approximatation and lead us to our own conclusions, whatever those are likely to be.

 

Vasco

[RAF_Louvert]

.

 

I agree with the others excellent comments here. It is very hard to pigeonhole exactly how I feel about war "sims" in general. I will say that with OFF I find a great WWI aerial combat sim that is very immersive while not dragging me all the way down into the mud itself: A sort of idealized version, if you will, of what it must have been like, with enough of the "reality" to make one actually care about one's virtual squadmates and self. The devs of this particular sim honestly got it right, IMHO. I for one do not want a sim that will bring me so close to real life tragedy that I can feel the pain and suffering that goes along with that experience. I have already lived through enough real life tragedy to know only too well how it devastates everyone involved.

.

[Hasse Wind]

It depends very much on how the game depicts the conflict we will be participating in with our player-controlled characters. A simulator like OFF strives to be as historically accurate as possible, and such games can even teach people about history and spark their interest into studying more about the history of crises and conflicts, which is a good thing. Conflicts like WW1 and WW2 had such a huge impact on millions (billions) of people and practically every nation of the world that it's a great shame many people today know almost nothing about them. It's easier to understand the world if you know about its past, and good quality games can help with that education, and of course give their players a lot of enjoyment.

 

But there also games, mostly shooters, that use historical wars only as a background for mindless slaughtering of countless enemies. I wonder what kind of message people unfamiliar with the history of warfare (apart from playing "historical" shooters) get from them?

[rabu]

Will have to finish reading these this evening, got to run off to work, but the few I read I think make really good sense and I agree with most of them.

 

This was interesting, this morning this article popped up on my home page news page (click here). It's a very positive, related story, about roll playing games helping some kids in school who have social issues.

 

See you all later

Edited April 9, 2010 by rabu

[NS13Jarhead]

Rabu,

It really depends on the game. If it's a computerized version of moving little cardboard squares around a big hexagon-grid map, then it can be educational. However some of the 1st person games are just plain mind-numbingly stupid. I saw one a couple months back where a soldier who was about to be killed at the Little Big Horn (Custer's Last Stand) was time transported into the future and then re-time transported back to critical parts of battles throughout history with anachonistic weapons. For example he/you get some sort of large capacity, large caliber, hand held machine gun at the Battle of Antietam/Sharpsburg in the US Civil War (1862). Stupid with a capital S.

[MikeDixonUK]

I also agree that it depends on the game, I've learnt quite a lot from playing different computer games over the past years, for example before I started playing OFF P2 I didn't realy know much about WW1 Air combat as I was more into WW2 - other than the mainstream Sopwith Camel and Fokker Triplane stuff, I didn't even know there was such a thing as a Sopwith Triplane before I got OFF (shocking I know! )

 

Equally they can be a key to unlocking an interest in something that you continue to research out of game time, the same can be said for Films and TV series (My main interest in WW2 probably began with watching the Battle of Britain film when I was young, and until I watched the Sharpe TV series I never realy had much of an interest in the Napoleonic Wars.)

 

Granted for every one game like those there are another twenty where the only thing I learn is that the general gaming public is easily pleased.

 

All I know is I've been soldiering in the Operation Flashpoint / Armed Assault / ArmA II series for almost half of my life, and that hasn't had any negative effects on me.

 

1: 2, Target that Add Reply Button.

 

2: Engaging!

Edited April 10, 2010 by MikeDixonUK

[Macklroy]

Well I chose the "It can have a possative effect, which is..." basically because it was the best way to describe how i feel about 'war' sims/games. Although I suppose the "depends on the game/sim" option would be just as well or even "a history lesson." But i had to choose one. ;)

 

I have probably learned MORE about history and geography in my gaming/simming time than I ever did reading a history book. Granted some of that knowlege may be slanted towards the opinions of the developers of said games/sims, however no more so than the slant that publishing companies put in their books, or history teachers slant their lesson plans. Also my exposure to these games/sims has also driven an interest to research other aspects of the period via video clips, documentaries, and books leading to further education. Although this may be a secondary effect of a war game, it IS directly related. Just one quick example:

 

Being an 'average' american in my ignorance of foreign countries I couldn't even begin to explain the geography of europe, africa, asia, etc. Hell, I would be hard pressed to properly place all 50 states in MY OWN country. However, ever since my extensive interest in the Total War serries, from Rome, to Empire and the latest Napoleon, my knowlege of those areas has improved 1000%. I really had NO idea how close Italy's boot heel was to the countries in the eastern block of europe....NONE!

 

So there IS a possative effect that these games can have, even if most of the game time is spent in an effort to kill. Knowlege is power, ignorance is folly.

 

Macks-2cents

Edited April 10, 2010 by Macklroy

[rabu]

I'm going to just spout off some mind dribble, with out really thinking about it all.

 

I was brought up in the 50's in a very patriotic country.. the USA.. which I now also realize was very blind, how ever well intentioned it's patriots were. who had to go out there and do the dirty work of war. I don't think things have really changed too much in the last 60 years, though. As a young kid in Viet Nam, my eyes were opened to a lot of truths and realities that I had never imagined, and they were a real shock at the time.

 

I agree with much of the intelligent comments so far. I agree that the historical part is educational and I think that, picking an answer, mine would also be, "It depends on the game/sim." Some really seem well done, informative, sensitive, and educational. Others seem only capable of sensationalism and gore and I am repulsed by them and worry how kids can grow up with this; maybe I'm out of touch. When I was a kid I too had guns, arrows, swords, and all manner of child weapons and the imagination to go with them based on books I read by Stevenson and other writers who glorified adventure, but also seemed to instill a sense of honor to all of it.

When I shoot some one down in OFF, I never relate to a person being in the plane, a person with a life and story. I guess because it is first of all, only a "game" and also because it is so removed from the actual person in the plane, and even more so because I know it isn't real. As the games get more and more real looking it gets harder for me to accept that it is acceptable, but again, maybe I'm just out of touch. But shooting a plane down is easier then stabbing some one or shooting them at close range, even if they are pixels on a screen.

 

Don't know if any of this makes any sense.. Maybe kids today are also benefiting by seeing the absurdity to it all?

 

Enough rambling for tonight...

[Morris]

For me FPS are only mindless entertainment but a lot of fun. If anybody thinks that you can play a FPS game and understand the dynamics of war after that... I dont thinks so.

 

You can be the best FPS LAN player in the world, but if someone gives him a real weapon and tells him to run and hunt the next person for a real kill. He will truely SH!!!T himself in the first to seconds if there are real ammo flying towards him.

 

Games are like reading. Some people read. I play games.

 

After playing OFF i have started reading books about WWI Air Combat. I love history. I even had history as a subject at university.

 

To use MikeDixonUK words "key to unlocking interest"

 

Historical FPS or Quake style is FUN.

 

m

[Olham]

Rabu: When I shoot some one down in OFF, I never relate to a person being in the plane, a person with a life and story.

I guess because it is first of all, only a "game" and also because it is so removed from the actual person in the plane,

and even more so because I know it isn't real. As the games get more and more real looking it gets harder for me to accept

that it is acceptable, but again, maybe I'm just out of touch. But shooting a plane down is easier then stabbing some one

or shooting them at close range, even if they are pixels on a screen.

 

That's different for me, Rabu. I do really think of the other fellow(s) in his/their plane. It is a fight for death or life,

so I fight it in the very moment, as if it was a sport. I push away all feeling of pity.

It's him or me; and I want it to be him.

But when I hear his scream, flying over his dying crate; when I see them burn, or when they jump to death, to avoid

burning to death, then the feeling is back.

Then I wished, it could just be a sport. The referee would whistle, and declare me the winner. The other bloke could

go home - beaten, but alive.

I do deeply believe, that the most aces of WW1 air combat felt similar about it. Udet showed cards of Rickenbaker,

Fonck and Bishop in his book, personally signed by the aces for him.

They all fought with great sportsmanship, if one can use the term here - and I am absolutely sure: as long as they were

human beings, they were ridden by nightmares about some of their victims for the rest of their life.

 

For those men, war wasn't something, were you could say: No, I won't do that, I won't go.

They did it as best as they could. And they had to live with it for the rest of their days.

 

Flying this sim, I feel and think about all this. Those are very conflicting feelings.

I am always finding out new every sortie: would I be worth my comrades respect and help?

Would courage or fear have the upper hand?

How long would I survive this?

 

So I can say: this sim, as it is made, taught me a deep respect for those men - with all the conflicting thoughts within.

It does certainly not glorify war, nor does it allow you to win the war single handedly (although I still keep trying - grin!).

Edited April 10, 2010 by Olham

[Hasse Wind]

Excellent post, Olham. I'm sure there were some cold-blooded killers among the pilots of the Great War, who didn't give much thought to the fact that they were killing human beings, but there must have been quite a few more sensitive airmen, who had trouble with delivering the killing blow. Udet is supposed to have been a very sensitive man, and he couldn't at first to shoot anybody down, he had to harden his feelings and think about what would happen to his comrades on the ground if he didn't shoot down those bombers, etc. (And probably this sensitivity played a part in his ultimate fate - suicide. He wasn't hard enough to deal with the intrigues of the Nazi regime at war.)

 

Artillery killed the most men in WW1, but killing people from a great distance by firing heavy shells is nowhere near as personal as having to do it on the front at close range. I've often wondered just how on earth the machine gunners handled their feelings (just think about what happened at Somme for example, where German MGs mowed down hundreds and hundreds of the attacking British).

 

In London, there's a memorial for the British Machine Gun Corps with the following inscription:

 

"Saul hath slain his thousands

but David his tens of thousands"

[UK_Widowmaker]

Fascinating subject.

 

Rabu brought up a good point, when he refered to youngsters using guns/Bows and Arrows etc...and Imagination.

If computer games have done anything bad...it is possibly that they have stiffled imagination in (some) Kids.

 

I am 'reasonably' sure, that Historical type War Games, have in fact developed my son's interest in History...but certainly not on their own! (he too had the toy swords etc..that first got him into The Medieval period...and it has moved on from there.)

 

Worthy note....his interest in Warfare ends at around the time of the Zulu Wars.

 

He has absolutely no interest in WW1, WW2, or any conflicts post that!...If I show him a jetfighter game, or a WW2 shooter, he rolls his eyes, and loads up Napoleonic Total War

[Burning Beard]

My fear is that people confuse the "War Games" with War.

 

I also grew up in the 50's and spent time in Viet Nam, and was lucking being in a not a very good place at a very good time. Thankfully my unit saw very little action, but were very effective in our mission, which was basically save as many friendly troops as possible while inflicting as much damage as possible on the enemy.

 

These games do not instill the mind numbing sameness and frustration that makes up a war. All they do is show action, and teach no respect of emotions that individuals are subject to after such an engagement.

 

If you lose in a FPS you regen and start again, you don't have to amp up your courage to get out from behind that safe position to expose yourself to harm or death. You don't have to expose your friends or buddies either. Anyone who thinks that these games give anywhere close to an accurate account of the experience of war is kidding themselves. My fear is that people think they have a skill at fighting while never having to do it.

 

They also do not give the individual enough sensory input to appreciate the experience. The ever-present dirt, the cold, the heat, the dust. Bad food, long hours, day in day out with out any time for yourself. Never having the luxury of being truly by yourself or being able to only worry about yourself. Having the mission being the only thing that matters, and having that mission meaning literally life or death for someone (in my case someone you don't know and will never meet).

 

Beard

Edited April 10, 2010 by Burning Beard

[UK_Widowmaker]

 

 

Which is why I'm totally against 'Revisionest History' which is history rewritten to make the heroes villians, along with the omission of certain periods. The Youth of today are the future, and the future looks mighty bleak

 

I wish you would tell Hollywood that UncleAL

[UK_Widowmaker]

My fear is that people confuse the "War Games" with War.

 

I also grew up in the 50's and spent time in Viet Nam, and was lucking being in a not a very good place at a very good time. Thankfully my unit saw very little action, but were very effective in our mission, which was basically save as many friendly troops as possible while inflicting as much damage as possible on the enemy.

 

These games do not instill the mind numbing sameness and frustration that makes up a war. All they do is show action, and teach no respect of emotions that individuals are subject to after such an engagement.

 

If you lose in a FPS you regen and start again, you don't have to amp up your courage to get out from behind that safe position to expose yourself to harm or death. You don't have to expose your friends or buddies either. Anyone who thinks that these games give anywhere close to an accurate account of the experience of war is kidding themselves. My fear is that people think they have a skill at fighting while never having to do it.

 

They also do not give the individual enough sensory input to appreciate the experience. The ever-present dirt, the cold, the heat, the dust. Bad food, long hours, day in day out with out any time for yourself. Never having the luxury of being truly by yourself or being able to only worry about yourself. Having the mission being the only thing that matters, and having that mission meaning literally life or death for someone (in my case someone you don't know and will never meet).

 

Beard

It would be a pretty awful game if it involved the 'true' reality of Soldiering...people need to remember (and I have to keep telling my Kid)...that Real War is nothing like the game...I think (hope) he can/has grasped this however.

 

I think OvS said, and I agree with you and him... But perhaps the nearest you can get to it in a game (at present) would be BIA Hells Highway

 

It's a great storyline, and deals with certain issues which you have brought up...and with it's team based gameplay..you really do get to know a little about the characters in it.

I felt it was almost like 'playing a part in a movie'....stunning!...and as he says, totally unlike the COD series, which merely looks and feels like everyone else in it..is a computer sprite!

 

As has been said before, people liken OFF to the Real thing...and to an extent it is...but it's still a game at the end of the day...you are not going to die horribly in a flying Tinderbox (for which I am very grateful!)

[themightysrc]

"Which is why I'm totally against 'Revisionest History' which is history rewritten to make the heroes villians"

 

Heroes as villains? Villains as heroes?

 

It all depends on your viewpoint.

 

I'd guess that you could frame more or less any historical event (well, war, I suppose in this context) as being from a POV where you can make that call, but it's only an opinion at the end of the day, and only supportable by how convincingly you can argue it.

[rabu]

Definitely depends on the game. You can learn a lot about history, weapons, tactics, strategies, etc... but you can also learn alot about death, carnage, destruction, and violence.

 

I think the best over-all FPS depicting the truths of WWII was BIA: Hell's Highway. The worst was the COD series, where it looks great, feels great, but its straight on carnage without much regard for thinking.

 

OvS

 

Thanks, Otto. I've played COD and MOH and though interesting and having historical content, I too agree they are too staged and predictable. The BIA: Hell's Highway looks really interesting. I love the Axis Salley intro on the website and have characters that you can learn about is a great idea, haven't seen that in a sim, except for maybe in the wonderful Mafia game. Unfortunately, it looks like my system can't handle BIA-HH till I upgrade my video card and processor. Has anyone played this, and what do you think about it?

 

Don't know how many of you may have played Mafia, but I was really impressed with it.. you get to know the characters and the story line was first rate. Graphics still look great after all these years and it's one of the few games I've played with really good voice acting, on a par with a good movie. I still have it on my system and still enjoy playing it off and on.

Edited April 13, 2010 by rabu