Regional Story Line Games (Cultural Biased)

What do you think of them?

Games like BC2 for example the story line features the Russians as being evil. Same for COD 4, the enemy are Russian.

The upcoming Bioshock Infinity is extremely US, American. Why does Irrational Games think this is an appropriate compelling setting considering Bioshock fans are global. Why do they think UK, Russian, Ukrainian, Korean, Japanese, or Argentinian would get psyched over this? After watching a lengthy interview, all the things Irrational Games were excited about, have nothing to do with being a US, American. There was absolutely no reason why the game had to be culturally tied to a specific country's past history and nationalism. Is this really the best they could do?

Medal of Honor is American elite vs Afghanistan, when the vast majority of the world condemns US occupation of Afghanistan to begin with. So what's the point? Is someone being paid to portray Americans as being saviors of Afghanistan? BTW Medal of Honor is the highest decorated, medal any US armed force can receive. So why does Danger Close/EA think German/Dutch players will be saying hooray, we get to play as Americans shooting Afghanistan, when I think the war in Afghanistan is wrong?

Just like when it comes to religion and politics, where games are usually ambiguous about, with some creative flare, but not offensive to anyone regardless of origin, I think some of these cultural biases should be taken into consideration also. Sure you can have a devil, maybe a deity, good vs evil, but developers avoid the Christan American pummeling a Muslim American in a Street Fighter game...

What do you think?

 

My short answer is that US is the biggest video game market and is also "famous" for having a large, fancy military that is very active around the world.

The Call of Duty franchise is owned/developed by an American company, and I think that has a lot to do with it.

 

I think you have a valid point in some regards.

I think your reference to realism can be taken a few different ways. First their is the factual realism. I.E. The Call of Duty: MW plot draws heavily on the Cold War conflict between the two countries. The Cold War was a real event.

Then there is environmental realism. As in the game we actually use weapons and technology that exist. The environment is similar to Earth, people are human, and so on.

If you substitute either (or both) of these factors you get something that is inherently unrealistic. I don't think that theres any sort of propaganda intended with the creation of these games. Honestly I would wonder about the developers intentions if they had 2 made-up opposing forces, 1 democratic and 1 communist, fight against each other and have 1 side win. To me, that would be more questionable.

Regardless if you make it realistic or unrealistic, people will still make connections about what the game is suppose to represent.

I play a mix of fantasy and realistic games, I enjoy both thoroughly. I usually enjoy the stories and plots of reality based games more because I can connect with whats going on.

 

If they made a Vietnam war game (based on what really happened), the game wont sell well in the US.
No American gamer is going to spend and play a game where the US is the looser.

 

Someone has to be the "villain" in story-based games, if the "evil side" is human then expect it to be based on another ethnicity different from those of the protagonist. As already mentioned, that might happen to reflect the programmer's home market/background.

 

I would and I think alot of others would too.

Not only has WWII + the modern day stuff been beaten to death, but there hasn't been one good, quality release yet that's done to Vietnam what MoH/CoD did to WWII......

 

If you are going to play a "war" game as all these military FPS's are about, you want to be at the cutting edge of war. Whether that be cutting-edge 1945, '65, or present, the US has always been there; and this is why they are almost always prominently featured.

 

The US lost that war on the political front. If you look at it strictly from a military perspective, it's quite a bit different. Just look up the numbers. So from a gameplay perspective I doubt it would matter that much, and I would absolutely play a good one.

Anyway, the answer is simple. Most of these games are made by Americans, with the largest gaming market in the world being the US. If it bothers you so much maybe you should stick to games produced by your country.

 

If you don't like the premise then don't play it, simple.

 

Although the new Bioshock game appears to take place in a fantastical setting, and the propaganda imagery seems to be more of a strong critique of xenophobic elements of US politics rather than any sort of endorsement, I would agree that there is a much higher number of games with naturalistic settings that take place in the US, as opposed to China, for example.

The video game industry takes many cues from film and TV, whether it's WWII films, or movies about the Mafia, etc. Since the days when European film production declined during wartime, films from the US began to replace local films in cinemas and ultimately people around the world grew accustomed to Hollywood studio-style films and stories, many of which were set in the US. Also, as the US is the largest market for games, many developers take into greater consideration trends among US consumers, rather than what Chinese or Iranian consumers are looking for in a game, for example.

Regarding Medal of Honor, believe it or not, there was actually some backlash among extremist conservative politicans, who complained about the fact that you can play a Taliban character and kill US soldiers in the game.

 

Its the same story with movies, not only games.

On a side note:
Since when can war between countries be separated from politics?
People just go and shoot each other just to see who's military force is stronger, from a military perspective??
The politics factor in war is always present.

 

@OP

You do understand that Bioshock Infinite is going to showcase the fault and dysfunction of it's realized Amercian Exceptionalism gone crazy? Just like Bioshock demonstrated the dysfunction and fall of Andrew Ryan's Objectivism (free market) based society (which was actually pioneered by a Russian. Take that GOP, ha!).

There are lots of examples of games not taking place in the USA. CoD 5 shared the SP campaign with the Russians, who were actually the ones to storm the Reichstag and finally defeat Hitler. How about STALKER, Metro 2033, Assassin's Creed, The Saboteur, Yakuza, Kane & Lynch 2, etc...?

I get what you are saying but just like Hollywood, big budget entertainment focused at the mainstream American audience usually portrays the USA as the big wonderful savior. Just something you have to deal with in a world dominated by American (western) pop culture. There are lots of alternatives but maybe you have to look a little harder.

 

so the larger audience who would buy the game and where generally the games are developed, are unneeded of more immersive gameplay?

other countries do the exact same thing with media / entertainment production. the United States just has a larger audience for military games and military games usually like to represent real life countries to tie in a more personal involvement with the games.

political affiliation or not, in the end it's a video game meant to be for fun. if you don't like it, buy something else.

 

You misunderstood.

 

^^ sums up my pov exactly
i try not to read between the lines too hard, it's a game and there to enjoy.
i don't enjoy games which over emphasis America (or any other country) as an outright hero because it's just been done to death.

the more grey/blurred the lines become, the more interesting it becomes imo. for instance i like the last cod campaign ending because of the twists in the plot revealed towards the end.

 

I think its once someones made a story its just the artistic process. Im getting involved with making video games myself and have wondered the same thing. In the end its the developers idea being expressed, kinda like a movie, transformers is a very americanized movie, so are tons of other movies. Doesnt mean its a bad movie, its just the context and environment the story creator thought up in his head. I think people choose common places like iraq and the middle east is its whats happening right now in the world, gives it a more factual bases. there are also biases in writing styles depending on which part or culture of the world you come from, so hence why oblivion has a way different feel for an rpg then something similar coming out in Japan.

 

I seriously doubt that anyone is going to play BS:I just because they're all like, "WOOOO! Turn of the century America!! Taft for President! Go, imperialism! U-S-A! U-S-A! WOOOOO!

Nations have globally-recognized cultures, particularly in specific historical time periods, and people love to romanticize them. Germans, for example, love the Wild West theme, with Cowboys and Indians, even though it never happened to them. It never really happened, anyway - not like it's portrayed in movies - but it's globally recognized and considered awesome.

It's perfectly fine to use charicatures of historical periods as a fantastical setting for a game. Avoiding it would be imposing arbitrary restrictions on creativity along the lines of avoiding pirates, ninjas, and space aliens.

 

I think you are getting way too bent out of shape. Nobody cares about the politics of it, they just want to play the game.

Take a look at this:

International public opinion on the war in Afghanistan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Other nations are only marginally more opposed to the war in Afghanistan than the US is, and a lot of that is solely their own country's involvement.

Look, they are going to lose few sales to people at home and abroad who will not buy the game solely because they are opposed to the war in Afghanistan. They are going to get a lot of people to buy it because it is a new FPS, hopefully better than ones from before, and it takes you into action that is currently happening and has never been done in gaming before. And if people are anti-US, or anti-war in Afghanistan well hell, they can kill US soldiers in the game and put an end to their "illegal occupation." Sounds like a win-win situation to me.

You act like Americans want to play these games for nationalistic reasons, and that is not true at all.

 

yes, my thoughts, exactly.

I would imagine these kinds of Americana elements in BS:Infinite simply add a bit of color and depth to the world that is essentially fantasy, judging by the advance gameplay trailer.

 

The US lead NATO (which you could argue is its puppet alliance) into Afghanistan, so its not just a "US" occupation. Actually the former Northern Alliance warlords are occupying most of the country from former Taliban, should we protest that as well? Hint: The Northern Alliance vs. Taliban split was largely along ethnic lines anyway, so at least one side is going to lose at any rate.

1) Bias is a problem on both sides:
This seems to be only be a problem one-way. It certainly isn't evil in reverse. Americans can be portrayed as overweight greedy and morally repulsive (ever watch an anime?) when a similar portrayal of any other ethnic or national group will result in accusations of racism and insensitivity. Additionally, no one seems to complain when we villainize Germans. The Germans are villainized in most World War II games and films, often rightly so. Although the Russian massacres and forced relocation of minorities is completely ignored. At the same time you look at the portrayal of Germans in the few WWI games (and films) and again they are villains. Odd, when one considers that all the combatants were imperialist and/or monarchies. (Everyone was on the moral wrong in WWI). Biased portrayals are common in most forms of media (Aladdin) and the very issue is ignored unless the group speaks up.

2) Historical backdrop provides realism, even if the history is stylized:
In (heavily story-based) games you project yourself into the role of the player no matter what ethnicity, gender or religion they are. Considering that the largest single market is Americans, why not make it easy for them to relate? Soon enough it will be about the People's Liberation Army in Tibet and how the rest of the world hates their occupation (and outright annexation) of another country. Or India and their long running war against the Naga people*. If you want a culturally ambiguous game, it largely detracts from the believability of the event. Being tied to reality and history makes characters and the environment all more attractive to individuals. It is merely a form adding additional realism to the video game. Something that I very much appreciate, in certain games.

And finally, I don't think Irrational Games was making US imperialism seem to be cool thing, it is more of a satire of imperialism in general. The fact that it spread to democracies (like Athens, Rome, France and the US) is merely a very interesting albeit recurring facet of history.

* not knowing these wars existed is a form of cultural bias. Only those more directly involved (or feel that they are) take notice of the issue. The issues that happen to attract worldwide attention (currently) also happen to be the issues those that have the most consequences perceived by the most people. Thus the fighting over Kashmir is more of an issue to people because it is "more relevant" to a larger audience...

 

i don't mind games with fictional story line. i thought the story in cod4 was okay, 5 was just too stretched.
i do however find ww2 games becoming distasteful and offensive(edit: the shooters at least).

 

If you look at it with the numbers the US committed huge resources/forces to the Vietnam war, and in the end in essence never won the conflict, despite collossal losses and expenditure. Yes in the short term one could say that the vietnamese got whooped, (I think that in terms of casualties there is a 2:1/3:1 ratio, where a large percentage of the north korean/viet kong deaths were civilian)

but considering how outgunned and outnumbered they were, and considering that in the end the US never managed to establish a single stable regime in Vietnam, the US got whooped hard... The numbers only tell a tiny bit of the story.

/endrant (and sorry if this is a bit off topic )

 

The old writers' adage "write what you know" applies to video game writers as well. Video games represent the cultural biases of their writers and developers in their heroes, villains, settings, and plots. Hence, a German video game hero might be more likely to die heroically at the height of his glory, while a Chinese hero might die humbly for the good of the people, and an American hero lives on in wealth and power. The villain in a game developed in the DPRK might be a Sylvester Stallone action hero, while in an American game, his counterpart would be the hero defeating Kim Jong Il. Did you ever notice how the wealthy ending of STALKER: SoC isn't a good ending? It wouldn't be so in an American game, and the protagonist's actions and motives would be different as well.

All that to say that a video game, like any other form of media, is highly reflective of the culture that produced it. It takes a special kind of artist to convincingly break from his or her own culture in fiction - most attempts are caricatures or worse. With most big-budget games being produced in the US, this means that most games will reflect an American point of view. With increasing cultural normalization occurring around the globe, this is fairly palatable to most (moneyed) audiences in the world, so alienating the minority of the customer base is not a big concern for the studios.

And in addition to all of that, there's the fact, much mentioned here, that many of the armed conflicts of the past 100 years have involved the US, and most warfare pre-1938 or so provided rather limited opportunities for the individualism that makes a good first-person video game. It would be very interesting to see games about non-US conflicts, such as the Chechen uprisings, or the civil wars and child soldiers in Africa, but the former isn't well-enough understood by Americans, meaning an American studio won't produce it, and a Russian studio might not bother translating it, and the latter is too tense a subject - nobody has managed to make a successful FPS yet that portrays how stark and awful war is, and glorifying those conflicts would be a major step in the wrong direction.

 

Actually, it was about 20:1... But yes, the US never achieved its objectives, so it was technically a lost war. It's actually similar to the American Revolution - the British had the capability to win, but pulled out when they saw how much it would cost them in time, lives, and resources.

 

Well, more than a bit of colour. Ken Levine is actually pretty infatuated with American History. Here's a snippet from an interview about BS:I

BioShock Infinite Interview: Irrational Boss Ken Levine - Shacknews - PC Games, PlayStation, Xbox 360 and Wii video game news, previews and downloads

I wouldn't say not true at all as that is impossible to gauge. I would suspect there is some pretty substantial consumer data to prove that Americans actually do enjoy entertainment in which America is the protagonist. If not, you probably wouldn't be seeing so much of it.

 

Again I'm torn. I think there are nationalistic reasons for not wanting to play a game where you kill American soldiers. At the same time, say you're playing a WWII game as the Nazi's. The final chapter is you being trapped in Berlin on all sides while the Russians come in and mess your day up? The rest of the story would probably be pretty interesting but the ending would just suck.

 

A WWII game played from the German side would be extremely interesting, if done right. It could follow the old Call of Duty mode of multiple storylines with different soldiers, and if it really got into the heads of the characters, it could be very revealing and, at times, sympathetic. For example, you could find yourself switching between a hard-line guard in a small-scale death camp and be forced by the system to do reprehensible things such as leading prisoners to the gas chambers, overseeing prisoners digging their own graves, and lining up and shooting a dozen people at a time. Then you'd be switched to a typical conscript - fighting in the war because that's his job, but with limited knowledge and limited support of the policies and actions of the Nazi leadership. You might also end up as a party member, ala the film Valkyrie, plotting Hitler's assassination, or an underground revolutionary, a Jew hiding in an attic or the family hiding him there.

A well-done game like that would be a great way to experience a fraction of the different roles people played on the German side of World War II, the good, the bad, and the compulsory. You would be afraid for your life as the Jew in the attic, and later in the camp; you would feel revolted by your own actions as the SS guard; you would fight with the sense of inevitability as the rank and file private, and lie in wait through close calls and constant duplicity as the inner circle traitor.

However, a game like that is unlikely to ever be made, because it wouldn't be profitable to a developer. Once people saw that a decent WWII FPS from the winning side was marketable, the market exploded. Now it's modern warfare, ala Modern Warfare, and everyone and his mother is programming a game in that vein. One of the great tragedies of video gaming is that its potential for creating compelling and instructive entertainment will never be totally fulfilled because of the focus on pushing the boundaries of graphics and immersiveness (which is expensive), and the necessity of financial viability.

 

Well said, gcrussell

 

Well now, its always easier to point the finger at someone else.

The US had better weapons, better equipment, helicopters, a larger army. On paper it looked like an easy victory, but in the end things turned out quite differently

 

What? Point the finger? I was trying to say that just because the US "lost" in Vietnam, doesn't mean there can't be a good and engaging game based on that war from the US side of things. Politics don't impact the gameplay, but rather, the story. Heck, it could even focus on just one successful campaign, where you still get to be the hero amidst the somber backdrop of it all having been for naught or something. It isn't black and white, and as such there's an entire tapestry of possibilities.

The whole reason I made that post in the first place about the US not losing on the military front was because someone else said something to the effect of "no one wants to play a game where you're on the losing side." It's not like your side's just getting curb-stomped the entire time or something. Hence me thinking you misunderstood what I was getting at.

I'm glad you're happy things turned out differently in the end.

 

I generally choose side of the underdog

Actually there is a game like that, its named Wolfenstein Enemy Territory (a bit old though). Playing as Allies or Axis is equally fun and challenging.
E.g. where the allies' engineer had to repair a truck and escape with stolen documents, the axis have to keep them from getting the documents and keeping the truck damaged. The axis even have quickchats in German like 'Wunderbar!' and 'Jawhol!'.
It is only multiplayer though.

 

Personally, I wouldn't want to play that game. I like war games just fine but it's one thing to be a Taliban soldier in MP fighting American soldiers (i.e. other players online) ... it's another to be willfully participating in one of the largest (if not the largest, I am not really sure) ethnic cleanings in modern history. Nazi Germany is a pretty touchy subject. It's not even legal to display a swastika in Germany in any form or fashion. Even if it is in an anti-Nazi demonstration or satirical comment.

 

The US military won the battles. The NVA, Vietcong, and false-flag Chinese PLAAF got whooped hard. Your casualty rates are also way far off.

There is a huge difference between someone wanting to play as a faction they can connect with and playing a faction for nationalistic reasons. Americans wanting to play videogames involving the US military is not because they are little nazis trying to further American imperialism. These games are not American imperialist propaganda. The only thing they try to do is to not offend the people trying to buy the game. They are not going to portray the US as the bad guys in a good vs bad light. Also the fact that you can kill US service members in the new game kind of negates your point. And in the old call of duty games you played as a member of the three major allied factions, with no higher honors bestowed upon the US over the other two factions.

But not every soldier was a Nazi. The Wermacht was distinct from the SS which did the worst of the worst. Many in the armed forces were even anti-Nazi, and were fighting only to defend their homeland. You seem like you really don't get it. In your eyes anything with the US military becomes bad because there are some things about it or the US you disagree with and the same goes for WWII-era Germany. You are unable in your mind to separate the wheat from the chaff.

 

Uhh what? I think you are projecting a little bit and misinterpreting the things I am writing. I am not anti American or anything like that. In the first case I was saying that there is a lot of science behind bringing entertainment products to market, in this particular case video games. And the post I was replying to said...

And I find a statement like that very difficult to believe. No one here knows anything so absolute like that statement. That was my point.

Second. All I was saying is that your description of playing a game where in some part(s) of it I am a genocidal Nazi gassing jews and committing atrocities to innocent people in a way that is historically and graphically accurate doesn't interest me. And imho such game would be better left not done since the subject matter is rather sensitive.

Thirdly, it's no secret games like America's Army and I think a few others were actually developed by the US military as a recruiting tool. If that's not a demonstration of games as a form of Nationalism (or American imperialist propaganda as you say) well what can I say?

 

I know recently it has been a common aspect of history lessons to bash the Wehrmacht Heer as if it were the Waffen SS, but they were two completely different organizations although the NDSAP did its best to indoctrinate the army as well. The Army did engage in genocide as well (such as von Manstein's order not to feed those who were not friendly soldiers). But it wasn't as if the common German soldier went around raping and pillaging (even compared to those on the allied side).

Consider for example the massive amount of r*p* that occurred during the Russian invasion of Germany or the NKVD actions in Poland. Yet how many games have it? None. Does that mean they are completely ignoring history? Only by omission. Omission of the holocaust would be nearly criminal in a game about World War II, but why would the character even participate? The war r*p* and genocide are just terrible subjects that should be included in any realistic portrayals of that terrible war. The fact of the matter is that war is horrible for all of those involved, and World War II escalated the concept of total war to its horrifying climax. The German and Japanese* perspectives of World War II has gone unplayed for far too long but why must we glorify any of the combatants?

By playing a character in a game, you are not condoning the behavior of the player. How many of you go out and murder people regularly? None (I hope). Just because you are involved in the plot does not mean you approve of it. This separation needs to be mentioned, because apparently it is implied in films (and other media) but the moment a video game has a similar subject it becomes controversial. This essentially makes portraying difficult issues in video games with any sense of realism impossible. Why is it different to be an American shooting the Taliban, than an Taliban shooting the Americans? There is no difference. Both actions are equally wrong. If you think otherwise then you are biased. In video games it is essential to see that the character you are playing is doing things that are not necessarily right and every action is essentially part of the plot, even if you are free to chose them (to the extent the game designers allow). Thus, you can be morally repulsed by characters or their actions. Yet, you can be fascinated by the plot, the action or whatever takes your fancy. Take for example, the movie Platoon. The main character is certainly a good guy, wanting to keep the others from killing civilians, and disliking the war (that he volunteered for). But at the same time, it does not glorify the Americans actions. Just because the movie was written by Americans, for a largely American audience, does not mean that it is inherently biased in favor of the Americans. Indeed, it is not in favor of the Vietcong/Vietminh either. Video games could learn a lot from Hollywood (and they are).

Yeah, only games that clearly are marked "US Army" are sponsored by the US Army. It isn't some form of conspiracy. Also, it wasn't sold, so I'm pretty sure it is an exception to the rule as clear cut marketing (game-play was not its primary objective). Also, other games developed for training really shouldn't be considered fair games (especially since that one was showing off future technology, in which America losing would be a great setback to the projects, which by the way were scrapped anyway).

* = I think playing as a Finnish soldier would be the most interesting, but I doubt there is a market for that. I rant too much.
And the funniest thing of all of this, is that these guys would not being complaining of cultural bias if they were the hegemon. So in fact by complaining of cultural bias, you're showing some cultural (or at least anti-hegemon) bias. Everything and everyone is biased.

 

I don't think many people would want to play that role in a video game, and if a developer considered creating the game I described, that character would probably be the first on the cutting floor. If done well by the studio, though, that portion of this theoretical game could be to the average person what The Passion was to Christians - a wakeup experience that leaves a lasting impression precisely because of how reprehensible the actions portrayed are. It would obviously be a very touchy subject, and would have to be handled with the extreme sensitivity and taste of a skilled artist, rather than the somewhat shaky, ham-fisted storytelling skills of most big game studios, but it could be something of great artistic and cultural value if done right. However, my point in dreaming that game up was to provide a counterpoint to the "people want to play the winners" argument, though I definitely got carried away, and probably failed miserably at making my point... Still it was fun to write.

 

Why would you want to play as the side that murdered millions of Jews?

 

This thread is now closed, it's headed in the wrong direction.