Grr... no, like a "slaughter-all-the-muslims-in-the-mosque-with-a-shotgun-befor e-the-time-runs-out-but-without-killing-friendlies" variety. A war game is a war game is a war game, and a slaughter game is a slaughter game is a slaughter game. That's like saying "Call of Duty" is racist and anti-German because the guys shooting back at you happen to be Germans. (Is the "Halo" campaign where you kill all the hunchbacked aliens [who are shooting at you first] xenophobic? Whoah, that has implications...)
--Vito
I dunno why it should be any different, though. Something such as the Battlefield games is more fair as you can play as whoever- though it's up to the developer when they want to make the decision about which nation to make the game about.
I do understand what you're saying though; it's more about the approach than the actual content. If the character blasts another Muslim with a pump-action shotgun whilst making a 'witty' racist one-liner... then again, there's games like that one made by the American Army or something. Maybe they're dressing up something deeper behind the premise of a war/action game. Games have often had some form of social commentary hidden away inside of them. An analysis of a period of history, or even the modern day- why can't they be the opposite, rife with brain-washing and governmental propaganda? | |
It's different. In wargames, there's the "faceless to-be-dead" enemy soldier theory: If you know very little about individual soldiers (except that they're trying to kill you), you will find it easier to kill them, primarily because they are shooting at you. In slaughter games, the "to-be-killed" are often innocent (stereotyped) bystanders who are being killed simply because they are there (and are being stereotyped, in some cases), and they are often not even trying to defend themselves. The second genre, which I'll admit can be really fun at times, can be easily made look bigoted simply by making the "to be killed" bystanders all fall under a single category, like a particular religion or race. If done correctly, a massacre game would be mildly funny and terribly addicting. If done incorrectly, funny becomes inflamatory and insulting.
And yes, many games are created with inherrent comentary on certain topics - that's awfully hard to avoid. Human beings have opinions, and human beings create our games. The best games are ones in which the position of the creators can be gleaned, but does not does not preach or interfere with the plot(s) of the game. A good story is also important, as are an easy interface and overall funness. (Difficulty helps as well.) However, these and others are off topic and will be left well enough alone. --Vito | |
@ your main post:
Yeah, I think I agree with you. A good story is also important, as are an easy interface and overall funness. (Difficulty helps as well.) However, these and others are off topic and will be left well enough alone. Sounds good to me. :) | |
1 - These are BYOND's servers. People have no right to free speech here. Dantom owns them - they are not a public area.
2 - Does BYOND look like America to you? | |
Jp wrote:
Hmmm... What is the word for 'biased against a particular religon'? Theist? :P Not exactly. =) | |
I know what theism is. I just found it amusing that 'theist' fits the same general pattern as 'racist' and 'sexist'. Hence the :P.
| |
Which just goes to show that even :P is quite capable of being misinterpreted. =) (I thought that was just because you were inventing a word... or rather, because you thought you were. If that makes sense at this hour.)
| |
Not very.
Fatal did say something about not receiving any staff messages, which suggests either he's not checking his e-mail address for that account, or it's ending up in his spam folder by mistake. Anyway, not our problem. He's been warned to stop reposting the game.
Lummox JR