Enemy and terrorist themes in videogames

[tmc]

ok, so the media's 'enemy' of choice right now is middle eastern extremists, i'm not here to debate wether that is deserved or not.

What i'd like to open to your thoughts to is:

Have videogames have generally followed the current 'enemy' of choice. i.e were the bad guys in videogames of the 80's mainly soviet in reflection of the cold war? as in commando maybe, was this a trend?

Does this lend a game to being more authentic using current themes or do you think it's disturbing and would rather see fictional enemies set 'sometime in the future'?

Have videogames changed the way you view any conflict either in feeling uneasy about how people and themes are depicted or have then solidified your dislike for the 'enemy'.

How was vienam handled by the videogame industry following the war, were any games developed in Japan with that theme that were at odds with what americans would have wished to be playing right after the defeat?

How long atfer a war has ended do you think it's acceptable for it to be depicted in a videogame? Could you play a videogame that has you killing enemies as it's actually happening in real life?

Do wartime or terrorist games have any historical benefit, where do you draw the line?

If there is a big massmarket for wartime videogames then why is it that the public would have no stomach for say a mass market videogame based on acts of terrorism (i.e 9/11) or even more sensitive, a game based on an actual historical serial killer or mass murderer (i.e columbine)? where are the two different?

And finally is any wartime/terrorism setting acceptable for the media of film or book but not videogames or visa versa? are videogames any different to any other medium in this respect?

sorry for all the questions but just wanted to throw out a few thoughts in my head!

[PingvinBlueJeans]

Have videogames have generally followed the current 'enemy' of choice. i.e were the bad guys in videogames of the 80's mainly soviet in reflection of the cold war? as in commando maybe, was this a trend?
Largely, yes...enemies in video games, movies, comic books, etc. from the 1950's until the 1980's were largely stereotypical "reds".



Does this lend a game to being more authentic using current themes or do you think it's disturbing and would rather see fictional enemies set 'sometime in the future'?
Well, it's reality. Anyone who finds reality disturbing is going to have a hard time getting through life.


Have videogames changed the way you view any conflict either in feeling uneasy about how people and themes are depicted or have then solidified your dislike for the 'enemy'.
No, not really.


How was vienam handled by the videogame industry following the war, were any games developed in Japan with that theme that were at odds with what americans would have wished to be playing right after the defeat?
WTF?...American involvement in Vietnam ended in 1973 (and the war ended in 1975). At that time, video games were in their infancy...no Vietnam War games (or any other war games) were really available at that time.



Do wartime or terrorist games have any historical benefit, where do you draw the line?

I learn my history from history books and such...video games are entertainment, so no, they have no legitimate historical benifit, in my opinion.

The rest of your questions require answers that are longer than I am willing to type, unfortunately. This thread also probably belongs in the 'Off-Topic' forum, as it has more to do with individual and cultural sensitivity issues, media trends, and such than it does with video games specifically. Just my two cents.

[jcalder8]

Have videogames have generally followed the current 'enemy' of choice. i.e were the bad guys in videogames of the 80's mainly soviet in reflection of the cold war? as in commando maybe, was this a trend?Yeah in some ways but I think fantasy enemies will always be more popular



Does this lend a game to being more authentic using current themes or do you think it's disturbing and would rather see fictional enemies set 'sometime in the future'? I see no problem either way. It's all about the story telling in my opinion



Have videogames changed the way you view any conflict either in feeling uneasy about how people and themes are depicted or have then solidified your dislike for the 'enemy'.Nope, there has yet to be a game that actually depicts anything that is currently going on anyway



How was vienam handled by the videogame industry following the war, were any games developed in Japan with that theme that were at odds with what americans would have wished to be playing right after the defeat?I think that in america the winning side of pong was seen as the US while the losing side was vienam where in Japan that was reversed



How long atfer a war has ended do you think it's acceptable for it to be depicted in a videogame? Could you play a videogame that has you killing enemies as it's actually happening in real life? I'd have no problem playing a game while the war still going on but since there couldn't be a winner or a loser in the game it would be pretty pointless


Do wartime or terrorist games have any historical benefit, where do you draw the line?Not that I have seen



If there is a big massmarket for wartime videogames then why is it that the public would have no stomach for say a mass market videogame based on acts of terrorism (i.e 9/11) or even more sensitive, a game based on an actual historical serial killer or mass murderer (i.e columbine)? where are the two different?I would say that there isn't a big massmarket for them.

What would you do in any of the examples that you gave? Did you really think those out? Columbine the Game!! Get bullied for a number of years, kill and wound a few people, try to blow up bombs that don't work and then kill yourself.



And finally is any wartime/terrorism setting acceptable for the media of film or book but not videogames or visa versa? are videogames any different to any other medium in this respect?
Yes because books can shed light on why events happened while videogames will never do this.

This really seems like a school assignment to me. If so I would say that some better questions are needed.

[Haoie]

Related to this, what was that game that had to be edited for content after 9/11?

[Ed Oscuro]

Have videogames have generally followed the current 'enemy' of choice. i.e were the bad guys in videogames of the 80's mainly soviet in reflection of the cold war? as in commando maybe, was this a trend?
Yes, very much so.

Late 80s - even Japanese companies were jumping on the anti-Communist, pro-Ronnie bandwagon.

Mid 90s - rogue states and terrorism factor into video games (they still are one of the premier antagonists)

Today - well, shit, Iraq, Afghanistan. A bit of China as well (Battlefield 2), and more of the rogue states stuff (see Bethesda's upcoming Dick Marchinko game).


Yes because books can shed light on why events happened while videogames will never do this.
Nah, I wouldn't say that. Right now there's a bit on GameVideos.com about an upcoming EA game that follows a few mercenaries in a war, and they talk with the lead developer about private military companies. That's not much closer to what the goal is - a socially aware video game, I suppose - but it shows that the interest is there. Eventually we'll get one.

Note, Battlefield Vietnam's sophomoric level-load short essays on the war don't count for much.

[Ed Oscuro]

Related to this, what was that game that had to be edited for content after 9/11?
Propeller Arena was canceled entirely. GTA3 was edited. I think one of the Microsoft Flight Sims got another look and possibly some changes. Can't think of any others at the moment but they exist (maybe a Spider-man tie in game?).

[James8BitStar]

Have videogames have generally followed the current 'enemy' of choice. i.e were the bad guys in videogames of the 80's mainly soviet in reflection of the cold war? as in commando maybe, was this a trend?

Um, not really. Just looking through my collection of 80s games, most of them tended to have either a Sci-Fi or Fantasy theme (or just be general nonsense games) that had pretty much zero real-life relevance. I mean unless you're going to say that the Evil Otto and his goons from Berzerk were somehow representative of Russia or something. The games I'm aware of that tended to have a military theme either were based in history (usually WWII) or used some made-up terrorist group. And I somehow doubt Cobra represents anyone in particular.

Maybe its just cuz I was too young to get it at the time and don't really remember the political climate of the eighties too well (I was born in 1983) but I don't really see ANYTHING from that era as having any sort of real-life relevance, certainly nothing on the level of the deluge of "America vs. Terrorists" games we see now.

And even those "USA vs. T" games themselves probably aren't so much "relevant" as they are a continuation of a lazy trend that just coincidentally happened to become relevant. I mean, games with terrorists have been being made since the 1980s, including games with Islamic terrorists, and Tom Clancy went and made the whole thing mainstream with his Rainbow Six games (which preceeded the War on Terror by about four to six years). Clancy, of course, has been writing about terrorists about as long as he's been writing.

Really, this is probably a case of seeing relevancy where there isn't one. Of course, this is probably now a case of you having read four paragraphs of answer that probably had only next-to-nothing to do with your original question too, so take what you will.

[hbkprm]

this stuff fastinates me

[InsaneDavid]

Propeller Arena was canceled entirely. GTA3 was edited. I think one of the Microsoft Flight Sims got another look and possibly some changes. Can't think of any others at the moment but they exist (maybe a Spider-man tie in game?).

I remember having to pull and return to vendor all copies of City Crisis - yes, City Crisis - for the PS2 after 9/11 due to it featuring flight near skyscrapers. Nevermind that you're putting out fires and saving people and so forth. :roll: Ah, corporate retail culture.

[jcalder8]

Nah, I wouldn't say that. Right now there's a bit on GameVideos.com about an upcoming EA game that follows a few mercenaries in a war, and they talk with the lead developer about private military companies. That's not much closer to what the goal is - a socially aware video game, I suppose - but it shows that the interest is there. Eventually we'll get one.

Note, Battlefield Vietnam's sophomoric level-load short essays on the war don't count for much.

I can't imagine a video game with hours worth of video taking the time to fully explore historical battles and individuals. In order to have a game on the same level as a book or movie it would have to become a movie itself because there are so many events that can't be played interactively and could only be seen or read. People play games or watch movies or read books I don't think that the 3 of them will ever be successfully combined, at least not in the sense that the question was asking.

[skaar]

this stuff fastinates me

I bet it does.

I think the Nazis have always been my favourite "classic" villains in movies and games. They're so wonderfully evil - and Mel Brooks just loves to have fun with them.

It was a shame they got edited out of Bionic Commando.

[heybtbm]

I'd like to see one mainstream game where true "non-generic" middle eastern terrorists are the enemy. Seriously, name one.

Game developers (and most of all publishers) are too worried about offending this group or that group...it's absurd. There is way to much PC hand-wringing in our society to ever let them use the name of an actual country or terrorist organization (gasp!).

This is one of the the reasons I love Pandemic and their Mercenaries franchise. North Korea (Mercenaries) and Venezuela (Mercenaries 2) were both up in arms over their portrayal in those respective games. Pandemic didn't cave and change the game location to "Communist Asian Country" or "Socialist South American Country". Real places, real enemies...I love it.

[Clownzilla]

WTF?...American involvement in Vietnam ended in 1973 (and the war ended in 1975). At that time, video games were in their infancy...no Vietnam War games (or any other war games) were really available at that time.
.

Your wrong! There was a little known game called Vietpong.

[Ed Oscuro]

Maybe its just cuz I was too young to get it at the time and don't really remember the political climate of the eighties too well (I was born in 1983) but I don't really see ANYTHING from that era as having any sort of real-life relevance, certainly nothing on the level of the deluge of "America vs. Terrorists" games we see now.
I was also born in 1983, but it's quite clear that a lot of games used the Cold War theme as a backdrop.

For example, how many flight sims can you think of that used the conventional "NATO vs. East Bloc" theme? If you can't think of any you don't know flight sims, most likely.

Plus there were all the games I mentioned earlier.

As far as there being no Vietnam games - well, MAME doesn't cover electromechanical games, but I'd imagine there's probably some wacky pinball out there - at least one - in addition to Sea Wolf type submarine games (the 70s/80s were the height of the sub hunter game with the Soviets) and we have M79 Ambush from 1979:

"This is a shooting game where thanks, jeeps and motorcycles battle it out in front of the two cannons under U.N. observation."

It's not especially specific, especially not as Vietnam-related, but the real-world theme is there (the game doesn't look much like a real battle, however, from the times I've played it).

[smork]

Your wrong! There was a little known game called Vietpong.

LOL I heard that game was unwinnable, which is why they pulled it out of the US Embassy in Saigon in '73.

Raid Over Moscow was considered pretty controversial in its day.

I think it's simply there's alot more games with alot more exposure these days. Also, most of the early early games (mid 70s to mid 80s) were just too primitive to have a plot with anything other than cartoonish enemies, so why not make them fantastical rather than real?

Plus, back in the earlier days gaming was primarily a hobby for kids and teenagers whereas now there's a much broader and more sophisticated audience. More mature audience => more mature subject matter.

[idrougge]

How was vienam handled by the videogame industry following the war, were any games developed in Japan with that theme that were at odds with what americans would have wished to be playing right after the defeat?


One example I come to think of is SNK's "Guevara", where you played Che, which was americanised into "Guerilla War", where you played American commando soldiers.


How long atfer a war has ended do you think it's acceptable for it to be depicted in a videogame? Could you play a videogame that has you killing enemies as it's actually happening in real life?


I think it's unacceptable to make entertainment out of war.

[tmc]

in response to an earlier reply that this was a school essey, no it's not, i'm 30 now and so my school bell rang for the last time years ago!

I just think about these topics a lot and like to throw them out there for debate.

Personally i do think that videogames have their place along side other medias in teaching kids about history. If there is so much trouble getting kids to read history books and watch documentarys these days then why not engage with them in the medium that they seem most familiar with - videogames. Ironically it is the rise of videogames that is often sited as being to blame for the decline the reading of books etc.

As a case in point i remember the 'D' day beach landings in medal of honour as having a much bigger impact on me then say the opening scenes of saving private ryan. I wouldn't begin to say that it gave me any real appreciation for what it was really like but it took me a little closer then any other medium had depicted it.

I also remember the short film clips between levels (nazi big bertha gun anyone!) that were historically accurate and it is precisely because they were linked to an emotionally involving game that i do remember them more so then an old history class for example.

I would put a disclaimer to this however, and that is that videogames would be best served as a fun introduction to a point in history, if this can grab the kids enough to get out there and look up the real history then videogames have done their bit for me.

there were lots of other points in my original post and i'll have a think, i don't really have answers to them all, i just seem to think up a lot of questions!