![]() |
Thougths Do you think that games are too "soft"? We make games that are supposed to imitade WWII, but wheres the all cruelty? When you shoot someone in MOHAA blood didn't even come out. We show kids that nobody really dies in wars and hes just sleeping on the ground. Why do we do this? What if we would release a game, that has all the racism, crualty, gore and death in it? Of course it would be sued for shocking children. But which is worse, Showing that war is a pretty thing where nobody really dies, or show whats it really like, in all its horror? |
Re: Thougths Brothers in Arms attempted to do that - depict a more "real" version of war like in films. There's blood, guts, dismemberment, swearing, "immersive effects"... but then as it followed a scripted story those who got killed but who weren't supposed to die yet got brought back to life for the next mission... |
Re: Thougths Quote:
Also, the problem with making a super realistic war game is that to make it realistic it wouldn't be any fun to play. When the creators of Operation Flashpoint came about making the sequel, they thought about setting the game during the Vietnam War. They talked to many veterans of the conflict, read loads of big ass books on the war and came to the conclusion that for the game to be very realistic but still fun, you would have to arrive in Vietnam then go straight home. The problem they found was they couldn’t find anything positive about the subject. The game, just like the war, would be frustrating and not fun at all. I think if games could maybe be a bit more realistic it wouldn't hurt, but it is a game after all and you want to enjoy playing it. |
Re: Thougths SOF 1and 2 and vietcong are good gorey games with all the swearing and stuff try those and the reasing games arent gorey is because they dont want that AO rating so it wont be soled as much dose that make sence? |
Re: Thougths Quote:
|
Re: Thougths Well I think the current gorey is good. More gorey wouldn't be "fun" to play atleast for me. As seeing graphics getting greater all the time too. Anyway games aren't the best ways to learn WW2 eventhough, are they? |
Re: Thougths Quote:
|
Re: Thougths Quote:
|
Re: Thougths A fair number of studies have been done on the topic, mainly as a result of parents' organizations and panic-mongering elected officials going after games as a bad influence on today's kids. The consensus seems to be that games are today's Jazz, Swing, Rock 'n Roll, violent movies, sex on tv, choose your "arrh, it's corrupting our children" phenomenon. Games are games, and I don't think it's giving enough credit to the intelligence of 10-20 year olds (I don't assume younger people are going to play much FH, to be honest) to want to make games into a pedagogically valuable experience. Frankly, I personally don't need the gore (I wouldn't care, but there are some things I really don't need to see.) Nobody's glorifying war either; I imagine people are generally bright enough to know that this isn't reality. Frankly I wouldn't bother with blood & guts. It's a game, it's supposed to be fun. |
Re: Thougths I don't like guts and gore also, but blood sometimes makes game better. Now I don't want that millons of gallons of blood is flying around, just that if you shoot someone in the chest, it leaves a big bloodspot. |
| All times are GMT -7. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.