Atomic Games: Six Days in Fallujah

[Dietrich]

I asked the question in regards to real life. But since this thread is about a game, I'll ask it in regards to that. It could be handled the Call of Duty way -- when the player shoots a friendly (or a noncombatant, but there aren't actually any noncombatants in CoD that I've ever seen), the screen blurs out and there appears text saying (IIRC) "Friendly fire will not be tolerated!" So anyone who insisted on shooting just any ol' person in game would be prevented from being able to continue.

[gunnergoz]

I asked the question in regards to real life. But since this thread is about a game, I'll ask it in regards to that. It could be handled the Call of Duty way -- when the player shoots a friendly (or a noncombatant, but there aren't actually any noncombatants in CoD that I've ever seen), the screen blurs out and there appears text saying (IIRC) "Friendly fire will not be tolerated!" So anyone who insisted on shooting just any ol' person in game would be prevented from being able to continue.

Yeah, that works. It makes the player play by civilized rules and I have no quarrel with a game like that.

[Clavicula_Nox]

If it was just a historical simulation of the ground combat, I would have no problem with it. Hopefully, non-combatants were not depicted. On the other hand, if the game depicted non-combatants and allowed a player to shoot them without having a really severe penalty for it, that wouldn't be right...lest the game become an Iraq version of GTA.

So you want it to be a historical simulation, but then you want to put qualifiers on it? Non-combatants are a critical element to the insurgency's tactics, taking them out is the same thing as taking away any other crucial weapon system. Maybe if the insurgents didn't utilize non-combatants in every aspect of their tactics and strategy, there would never be a need to depict them.

Why would the game allow targeting non-combatants without penalty? It seems to me that you are making up random things and then tossing them in as an objection. You know, I wouldn't like the game if they included a segment where I was forced to run back and forth guiding Tetris-like blocks into a little puzzle so I could advance to the next level. Seriously, your objection has no merit because, unless I missed it "Gun down civilians!" was not toted as a feature.

Also, GTA 4 presents a main character who is a reluctant criminal. Throughout the entire game, the developers use various supporting characters as moral barometers and anchors. The character is not glorified and he spends the entire game (if you follow the storyline) in conflict with other criminals. I think there is one supporting character who tasks you with various things for stupid reasons, and when the player character finds out, he refuses to do any further business with him. GTA 4 isn't about "LOL I am a criminal, how great is this? LOL!" I can't necessarily say that about any other game in the series, but then, the other games were never presented as having some kind of compelling story to it.

But hey, if you don't know the content of the games, why are you talking about them? If I called a Rose a "crapstick" would it suddenly become something else? Likewise, if I called a pile of crap a Rose, would it magically sprout petals and a pleasant scent? No, it would not.

[Clavicula_Nox]

Yeah, that works. It makes the player play by civilized rules and I have no quarrel with a game like that.

Um, what exactly did you imagine this game to be like? Did you picture it to be a depiction of the evil bloodthirsty Americans who just can't wait to murder some helpless defenseless poor Iraqis?

[gunnergoz]

Um, what exactly did you imagine this game to be like? Did you picture it to be a depiction of the evil bloodthirsty Americans who just can't wait to murder some helpless defenseless poor Iraqis?

No, where did you get that idea? Did you not read my earlier post in this thread where I said that I had no problem with what I understood the SDIF game to be, or to war games or shooters, so long as they don't go around depicting war crimes or torture. And where do you get off throwing that sort of "evil bloodthirsty Americans" and "helpless defenseless poor Iraqis" language at me?. Trying to bait me with claptrap? Please carefully re-read what I wrote earlier in this thread before casting insulting insinuations like that at me.

Like I said, I object to games that allow or encourage players to engage in criminal acts or to engage in conduct that is essentially a war crime. And I've explained why I feel that way. I have not played GTA but what I have read about it justifies my objections to it based upon my value system. And no, I'm not about to waste money buying it and rewarding the producer for coming up with the damn thing.

[Apocal]

Sorry for weighing in late, I kind of forgot about this topic. Hate to hit-and-run a thread and all that.

Unfortunately, one of the many negative by-products of modern culture is the widespread acceptance of gratuitous violence as normal and "entertaining." In that sense, the species is making little progress towards elevating itself above the base and self-destructive.

Gladiator fights anyone? Historically speaking, the de-glorification of violence is a relatively new thing for the western world, although taking a longer view of the past shows it's generally tied to relative affluence. Money seems to have a mellowing effect on people.

I still think FPS games and military "sims" still are well off the mark in terms of realism because no matter how much of a game takes place in a densely populated city from which the civilian populace has expressly not been evacuated, the player never encounters civilians in game. (I should say almost never, since, though I've never encoutered a civilian in any FPS or "tactical shooter" I've played, I admit I have played only a relative few such games.)

Were an FPS or a "tactical shooter" to include civilians, this would be seen not as being in accord with tactical reality of modern war -- where the typical Blue soldier has to distinguish, even at extended ranges, between armed combatants and unarmed civilians -- but as an excuse for some Harris/Klebold wannabe to massacre pixelvolk. Cuz you just know some malicious-hearted 15-year-old boy would buy the game, discover that there are both enemy combatants and innocent civilians, and would then spend all his free time shooting digital victims; sooner or later his mom would find out, she would be horrified (and rightly so), she would report it to some authority, that authority would report it to some news agency, and before we knew it the game would be getting pilloried in Congress (or some subcommittee thereof), and in no time at all it would be banned and pulled from shelves.

So yeah, I figure no modern-combat-related game is going to include civilian NPCs. Perhaps it's some unwritten/unspoken rule (which I have all along simply been uanware of) in the game development community that no game ought to include characters which the player would not be fully justified to shoot in real life.

You are correct, I believe. I have encountered only one shooter with NPC civilians: the original Ghost Recon, in my opinion one of the greatest military shooters of all time. They weren't around very much, but when they were there, it was always a sort of gut-wrenching moment when you line them up in your crosshairs, and right before you pull the trigger, you say, "Oh $#!@, that's a civilian!" and avert firing just in time. Fortunately, I never failed to stop before I shot, but it makes you think about what the troops go through.

I honestly thought that was a really interesting game element and one that I would personally like to see in more military shooters, but I think the game would need a very strong element of "punish the player for killing the civilians." OGR had that (I think you'd lose the mission immediately if so much as one civilian died).

Both Operation Flashpoint and Armed Assault include civilians and I can recall many missions over the years that included relatively realistic depictions of civilians mixed in combatants. The victory criteria is incredibly open-ended although most missions made some semblence of an attempt to penalize players for shooting civilians.

The best was a small-scale COIN campaign mission in Operation Flashpoint where the player was given a handful of troops, a few vehicles and a brewing insurgency that had placed arms caches around the map. The players could interact with civilians in various ways, talking to them, interrogating them, bribing them, detaining them or killing them, which played out in various ways, i.e. you weren't penalized for killing an IED maker but you were massively penalized for killing/detaining someone who was innocent or only somewhat linked to the insurgency. This penalty took the form of peope who were previously neutral becoming insurgents. So if you killed the wrong people consistently, you'd eventually piss everyone on the island the off, you'd never find the arms caches and they'd come at you in numbers until you finally had only your FOB to fall back to and you were either killed or held out until evacuated. It was actually the most complete and illustrative examples of COIN in gaming I've seen, because you actually had reason to leave the Abrams and artillery (use of which would turn civilians against you) and ride the Humvee to town. Most people were fencesitters, in the beginning and would refuse to talk to you. A few would give intel on the locale of arms caches, but some were so shady it was hard trusting what they said. A handful would shoot at you. Certain people you'd *know* were insurgents and probably hosting arm caches, but they were community "leaders" so you couldn't kill, detain or even interrogate them without angering others. It was a constant balancing act between carrot and stick, conventional approach (levelling an insurgent stronghold w/ arms cache with your Paladin battery) or unconventional (paying them wages to join your side).

The only somewhat distasteful mission I ran across was actually based somewhat closely upon the events of Operation Red Wing; players assumed the role of a 6-9 man reconnaissance team that has been compromised, with the only viable way out of the immediate area being through a hamlet occupied by unarmed but unfriendly civilians. Your options at that point are to ignore the civilians (leading to the civilians ratting you out and masses of enemies converging on your team), detain all the civilians (giving you additional time before they are able to rat you out), or kill the civilians and hide the bodies. There was more to the mission than that, but the fact that it included a moral choice that was left open (no penalty for killing the civilians). That being said, of all the times my gaming clique played the mission (10+) only once did people go with killing civilians (and that I suspect just to see what happened).

I'm sure there are individuals out there building massacre recreations and playing them solaitaire, but for the most part people are mature, even in the FPS world. Just because you have a few ****heads who can't drive doesn't mean you close the roads for everyone, right?

This game has lost it's publisher.

Ironically, it was developed with the support of the Marines who fought the battle with criticism coming from families of fallen Marines and people who disagree with a portrayal of a historical event.

I noticed that as well, Marines and former insurgents were apparently some of the people guiding development of the game. Although I question if it's cancellation is due to the games controversial nature and not because it looked to be shaping up like a cheesier, more arcadey-version of CoD4...

If it was just a historical simulation of the ground combat, I would have no problem with it. Hopefully, non-combatants were not depicted.

So essentially, you'd like an unrealistic, ahistorical depiction of ground combat... I see.

[Field Marshal Blücher]

Both Operation Flashpoint and Armed Assault include civilians and I can recall many missions over the years that included relatively realistic depictions of civilians mixed in combatants. The victory criteria is incredibly open-ended although most missions made some semblence of an attempt to penalize players for shooting civilians.

I haven't played either. I've heard they are great though.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Civvies in Operation Flashpoint? You've got a better memory then me.

[Clavicula_Nox]

Civvies in Operation Flashpoint? You've got a better memory then me.

Yup, both male and female.

[Dietrich]

Apocal,

Thanks for the details. I find it ironic that I have become aware of OFP and ArmA only after playing FPS series like Medal of Honor and Call of Duty for years. All the evidence points to both OFP and ArmA as well as their sequels being the compelling titles I've been looking for all along. (Though similar, evidently it's not that either is better than the other per se; it's that both have plenty of good things to offer, so I figure I'll end up buying both eventually.)

Sincerely,

Dietrich

[MeatEtr]

Yeah I've blown away many civies in OFP and AA. I always felt kinda bad, but thought "Hey it's a warzone, sh*t happens!". IIRC you are penalized in the points roundup at the end of the mission.