PsiSoldier
Well-Known Member
QFT
It's no more disgusting than asking the player to kill hundereds of -possibly innocent- people, that just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Call of Duty: World at War
- Thread starter Traxata
- Start date
QFT
It's no more disgusting than asking the player to kill hundereds of -possibly innocent- people, that just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Dragon
Well-Known Member
I think there is a difference between seeing this in a movie and letting a player "kill a POW" ( I know its only a computer program) all by himself.
This is (I know it is a very abstract example but I hope you get the point) like making a game where you have to rape women or children or whatever in the background of the civil war in an African country. After all "its war" isn't it?
Isn't the context here that you have a choice not to?
Nanor
Well-Known Member
Well, actually, there are parts where you don't. I mean you can choose not to shoot surrendering Germans yourself, but your comrades shoot them then. Actually they burn them to death with molotovs.
War is hell.
Dragon
Well-Known Member
As you can see, from Nanors post, you actually haven't. And even if you had it would be like "Well you don't have to shoot those innocents, but if you do, who cares?" And this is what I criticise most. You shouldn't be "rewarded" for killing innocents but rather punished, for example with a game over. Which is the same thing, I persume, you will see when you try to prevent one of your npc comarades from killing those innocents.
The Martin
In Cryo Sleep
Actually, I thought it was a good design choice.
See, the Call of Duty games, like most FPS games, glorified war. Not actively, mind, but they felt like action movies, with lots of "Hell yeah!", "Let them have it!" and "Blow the fascist dogs to hell!". The firefights themselves, while very intense, were actually pretty timid when it came to showing the violence.
Call of Duty: World at War, on the other hand, shows the full brutality of the war without revelling in it. I don't know about you, but when I played CoD4, I felt nothing but the adrenaline rush, the excitement, and the "Oorah!". In CoD:WaW, I felt something else beside the joy. I felt horrified by the cold-bloodedness of the Russian campaign. And this, in my opinion, is a good thing in a game that's portraying war.
See, the Call of Duty games, like most FPS games, glorified war. Not actively, mind, but they felt like action movies, with lots of "Hell yeah!", "Let them have it!" and "Blow the fascist dogs to hell!". The firefights themselves, while very intense, were actually pretty timid when it came to showing the violence.
Call of Duty: World at War, on the other hand, shows the full brutality of the war without revelling in it. I don't know about you, but when I played CoD4, I felt nothing but the adrenaline rush, the excitement, and the "Oorah!". In CoD:WaW, I felt something else beside the joy. I felt horrified by the cold-bloodedness of the Russian campaign. And this, in my opinion, is a good thing in a game that's portraying war.
PsiSoldier
Well-Known Member
My feelings exactly.
Dragon
Well-Known Member
And sitll, what is the point in allowing the player to kill innocents? IMO it just shows "Ok, kill them, see you can do it, its not that hard."
Nanor
Well-Known Member
CoD:WaW isn't the first game to allow you to kill innocents. Do you feel the same about GTA?
I would expect the whole point is to provoke the disgust you're demonstrating here. As The Martin said, most games of this type glorify war. "WOOHOOO! WE'RE PATRIOTS, LET'S KILL SOME NAZI SCUM" etc.
I for one am quite happy the game is taking a more mature and serious look at war itself. Frankly, (realistic) war shooters that don't visit the dark things that happen in war and instead paint pretty pictures of killing dudes and saving the world are the abominations here.
Dragon
Well-Known Member
TBH ... yes. When I was younger (about 15 or 16) I played GTA and found it very amusing to run aroung in the streets killing random people with a flamethrower. Today I think that this behaviour was not only immature, but also very ... disgusting.
But back to topic. I maybe I understood you wrong or you me, what I meant to say is that I don't like the fact that you have the choice to kill those innocents. I agree with you that showing the inhuman behaviour of soldiers in war on both sides, Axis and Allies, Americans, Germans, Japanese and Russians, is good to prevent the glorification of war, but giving the player the option to commit those cruel deeds himself instead of only watching them is what bothers me.
PsiSoldier
Well-Known Member
Hang on, innocents? The people who capture and beat you? The people who have killed civilians and soldiers alike, leaving them in the streets to rot?
I don't see how you can dislike the fact you have a choice to do it, you aren't being forced to do it if you don't want to.
Dragon
Well-Known Member
How do you know that he was one of those pigs who raped and killed innocents and not just a young man forced to fight for Hitler? An unarmed person is an innocent. If you kill him just the way he did with a helpless man when he had a gun, you are no better than him. And this is what most people don't realise. So the choice to shoot him yourself can give you the image that it is ok to take revenge, as he will be killed anyway. In this case it would be better (IMO) to give your own character a disgust for this senseless killing. Maybe in making him throw up and giving the player the feeling that he took some serious burden by not helping them or not being able to help them. THAT is the way I could accept this scenery.
waterproofbob
Junior Administrator
lol yeah but the minute I start feeling guilt about an AI in a game is a very sad moment. It's a game, I feel no remorse for running ppl over in GTA I feel no sense of conflict morality at any point during a shooter however realistic the setting. I also see no need what so ever for games devs to add this. If I were a solider in that situation I ould not ever shoot a POW. I think in RL it is entirely unacceptable. However fortuantely I'm not a soldier and it is a game. In FPSs I don't care if it is unarmed half naked asking for some monster munch, if it is an enemy I kill it job done. The actions carried out by the characters in games and in films in no way reflect my actions in real life and in a war game especially FPS style I think it is important that they highlight those areas, but I certainly don't think my character should be negatively effected by killing an unarmed man any more than killing one with a BFG.
Dragon
Well-Known Member
Thats true. But some younger players can't differ that much. Thats why I don't consider this kind of violence, which probably is one of the worst parts of human behaviour, acceptable in a game.
And maybe innocent is not the right word. Its true that giving away your weapon does not instantly deny your guilt, but I didn't find a better word for "disarmed helpless former enemy now begging for mercy" (I'd be happy for some english lessons here
)But what I wanted to point out is: how can you make in this case a difference betweens someone who was forced to fight for his country or someone who loves to kill (and maybe even torture) others, enemies and civillians.
A side note on this, younger players really shouldn't be playing this game. Obviously they are, but the ratings are clear as being 15 (BBFC) and M (ESRB) and thus should be only available to people who are able to make the distinction between play and real.
I think words you could use to describe these people might be "prisoner of war", or "captive", or maybe even "hostage". In any of these cases, shooting them seems to me to be a war crime but maybe there are technicalities that we'd need to be aware of in order to make that assessment.
I believe, though, that exercising the "right" to kill is something that is, from time to time, required for a whole range of reasons. The actual specifics of the killing are, of course, what draw the distinction between whether we'd consider it justified, or legal, or understandable even if not acceptable, or downright sadistic. Within the context of a game, though, especially when using the "games are like films" analogy, which is common at the moment, all the killing is so distant, so abstract that it really has little to compare with reality. Sense of smell, a key indicator for fear, is missing. All the brain chemistry that one might associate with "you tried to kill me but now I've got a gun trained on you and I could just take revenge" is missing. For me, that makes the comparison from game to reality too distant to be helpful to analyse. Of course, YMMV.
I think words you could use to describe these people might be "prisoner of war", or "captive", or maybe even "hostage". In any of these cases, shooting them seems to me to be a war crime but maybe there are technicalities that we'd need to be aware of in order to make that assessment.
I believe, though, that exercising the "right" to kill is something that is, from time to time, required for a whole range of reasons. The actual specifics of the killing are, of course, what draw the distinction between whether we'd consider it justified, or legal, or understandable even if not acceptable, or downright sadistic. Within the context of a game, though, especially when using the "games are like films" analogy, which is common at the moment, all the killing is so distant, so abstract that it really has little to compare with reality. Sense of smell, a key indicator for fear, is missing. All the brain chemistry that one might associate with "you tried to kill me but now I've got a gun trained on you and I could just take revenge" is missing. For me, that makes the comparison from game to reality too distant to be helpful to analyse. Of course, YMMV.
waterproofbob
Junior Administrator
I think I've judt done the bit we are talking about 2 guys who have just been beating you up and you are told after being rescued by the guy who saves you to kill them, it is up to you whether you do it or not. I see no harm in this, it's not a choice of gut them ear to ear with fish wire or perform some vikingess torture, simply kill 2 floored enemies that actually still have weapons but are unable to use them due to being briefly incapacitated. I see no harm in that what so ever. You get the choice. I treated it like any other last stand ( dead guy on floor insists on killing you after you've properly killed them for those that aren't COD literate) . I killed them both on the off chance that I walk out the door with them shooting me in the arse as i go.
PsiSoldier
Well-Known Member
I assume here you mean the russian soldiers, as - correct me if I'm wrong - there was no german conscription program going on.
There have always been people like the latter that slip into military forces, and as this is after all a war game, I think it's only right that it shows it.
