Okay, so it's still an immature example of battle. Everything in CoD is very clear cut. You enter the battle zone and everyone that isn't wearing your uniform is the enemy. There's no holding your shots in impotent rage because the gunmen you face are in the middle of a crowd of people. There's no worry that you might be shooting an innocent man that just happens to have a suspicious face. There's no risk, you just move forward in a more or less straight line shooting everything coming down the bad guy tube.
Originally Posted by Savayan
Likewise, death is marginalized. There's rarely any coming across some poor Arab irregular trying to shove his guts back into his chest. And with the exception of the main characters, everyone on the battlefield is a more or less faceless construct that's lucky to have a randomly generated name. All main characters that die do so in a manner that's dramatically important, and you always get revenge on their killers. You never see your best friend get plugged in the back of the head by some sniper you never see hear or catch. You never lose half your squad to an IED you never saw until it was too late.
Again, all of this also applies to Chess, to Stratego, heck, even to 90% of all roleplaying games - when have you last encountered a description of some poor Orc irregular trying yo shove his guts in back into his chest. If you do lose half your squad (well, 'party') or die due to an enemy you hadn't seen, you just shrug and roll up a new character, without roleplaying out the funeral, and the loss their families experiences, and the father- or motherless upbringing of their children. If you happen to kill an unimportant NPC, you will at worst shake your head, but two encounters later, it will all be water under the bridge.
Why haven't you similarly been saying chess is an 'immature example of battle' since you became aware of it, or protesting most of us are treating war too immaturely by slaying monsters or shooting them from our mechs or whatever floats your RPG boat?
In a broader sense, Colonists of Catan never shows the horrors of famine or drought, Monopoly is remarkably light-hearted about fraud and crime, and so on and so forth. Cluedo has been an equally immature example of criminology for 63 years, and nobody has ever complained. Why can't we similarly leave CoD do what it's intended to do, that is to say, to simply entertain?
Yes, you could make a game that represents all of this.
Such a game would be more accurate, but, considering all of the things you've described aren't pleasant to be part of, it would be considerably less fun
. Fun is the purpose of a game, so a game that would sacrifice fun for reality would simply be failing in its purpose.
That's not to say that it's a bad game. But it is just a game, basically the equivilant of a Michael Bay movie. All sound and fury with no substance. That being said it has the proud company of pretty much every shooter ever. The genre has yet to have it's All Quiet on the Western Front.
Originally Posted by Savayan
Not quite. It's not so much that the genre has yet to have its All Quiet on the Western Front as that it's a genre entirely different from All Quiet on the Western Front. It's sort of like saying the genre of romantic comedies has yet to write its The Republic.
The bottom line is this:
A game is not a documentary. If you're going to demand games give accurate depictions of war, then it's just as reasonable to ask war documentaries provide half an hour of fun and chuckles - until then, the genre of war documentaries has yet to have its
|replace with comedy of your choice. |