[Vivi22]

Originally Posted by Malaki-LEGEND.sys

I agree with this. The primary function of games is entertainment. A documentary is first and foremost a piece meant to inform people, and there is a specific audience who watches them. If Six Days in Fallujah had ever come out, you'd never hear talk about "I think the struggle that these soldiers went through was pretty grim and hard" throughout most video game internet forums. No, you'd hear "Holy crap how I shot M16!?"

To be fair, we're never going to get to the point that mature and thought provoking topics are acceptable if we don't stop underestimating the audience. Are there plenty of people who wouldn't get the message behind a game like Six Days in Fallujah and not see past the gameplay? Yeah, there are a ton. There are also a ton of people who could watch a film trying to convey a similarly mature message, miss it entirely and either hate it outright or still enjoy it on other levels completely oblivious to any deeper meaning.

It's easy to say that we have a long way to go before the audience matures enough to catch up to what developers want to do, but I don't think that will happen at all if we don't start giving the audience more credit and tackle sensitive topics. I think we really need to start giving gamers more credit and also realize that even if the message only reaches 5% of the game's audience, it's a success. Those who got it might just be able to explain to others what they got from it and have them realize there was more to the game, and that there can be more layers to other games as well. Just because a lot of people might not get it is no reason to shy away from this stuff.

[Malaki-LEGEND.sys]

This is true, but you can't deny the first point in that games are first and foremost pieces of interactive entertainment. I probably wouldn't buy Six Days in Fallujah to learn about the experience. No, I'd buy it 'cause I want to play another (hopefully)good FPS. The message it's trying to convey is, and given the nature of the medium probably should remain, secondary. I could see if you're a history buff and enjoy FPS games, you'd probably buy Fallujah for both reasons, just like I bought Eternal Sonata because it hit all the right RPG notes AND had a very music-oriented setting which I appreciate personally. In your example I'd be in the 5%. And if we're talking about just 5% who would appreciate it, are we really underestimating the audience? Going back to my Heavy Rain example, the game is probably going to have an amazing story, but I'm probably not gonna buy it. Why? It doesn't seem "gamey" enough to me. This industry is first and foremost about making enjoyable gameplay experiences.

To me, games like Fire Emblem: Path To Radiance and Eternal Sonata prove you can have mature hard-hitting and thought provoking subject matter and also have great experiences. If we're gonna hit maturity in games, it has to be done tastefully and the audience needs to be able to appreciate it for what it is.

Anyway, this is more on topic with a previous video and I'm probably rambling on incoherently at this point. I do agree with the major point in the video: Criticism and controversy should be taken head on with integrity and without meekly backing down on what you were setting out to achieve.

[Animae]

Originally Posted by Vivi22

To be fair, we're never going to get to the point that mature and thought provoking topics are acceptable if we don't stop underestimating the audience. Are there plenty of people who wouldn't get the message behind a game like Six Days in Fallujah and not see past the gameplay? Yeah, there are a ton. There are also a ton of people who could watch a film trying to convey a similarly mature message, miss it entirely and either hate it outright or still enjoy it on other levels completely oblivious to any deeper meaning.

It's easy to say that we have a long way to go before the audience matures enough to catch up to what developers want to do, but I don't think that will happen at all if we don't start giving the audience more credit and tackle sensitive topics. I think we really need to start giving gamers more credit and also realize that even if the message only reaches 5% of the game's audience, it's a success. Those who got it might just be able to explain to others what they got from it and have them realize there was more to the game, and that there can be more layers to other games as well. Just because a lot of people might not get it is no reason to shy away from this stuff.

I agree, and I also think that the opinions conveyed on several gaming forums are not representative for the gaming community as a whole.

There is however a problem in comparing games to other mediums. Film has gotten pretty cheap and easy to make over the last decades, so it's not necessary to pump a lot of money into projects. Games like Six days in fallujah however, are still pretty expensive to make. I think we must look at the indie scene and the small developers to push the limits of the game medium. They almost HAVE to be unique and get attention to bring their game to a larger audience. And then, it's up to us gamers to support the small developers if we feel that they bring something new to the medium.

[Archaon]

Originally Posted by Malaki-LEGEND.sys

Going back to my Heavy Rain example, the game is probably going to have an amazing story,

Assuming they don't do another Indigo Prophecy and suddenly pull evil Internet cyborgs out of their asses in the middle of a compelling murder mystery.

[SwordBreaker]

Good video as usual. Great job in wrapping up such a big topic in under 10 minutes.

Regarding that Fallujah game, people often forget about the suffering from the other side of the spectrum. I've been personally against this game because many Muslim civilians died in that battle as well in addition to the American soldiers. Nonetheless, you've made some very interesting points surrounding the controversy.

Keep it up, man. I may highlight this video in a post for the site I work for soon.

[Vivi22]

Originally Posted by Malaki-LEGEND.sys

To me, games like Fire Emblem: Path To Radiance and Eternal Sonata prove you can have mature hard-hitting and thought provoking subject matter and also have great experiences. If we're gonna hit maturity in games, it has to be done tastefully and the audience needs to be able to appreciate it for what it is.

I'm not going to disagree with any of this actually. I do think that an enjoyable game experience should come first, but the examples you mentioned, as well as games like Silent Hill 2 show you can do both. What it comes down to is that the people who get it will get it and likely appreciate a good game that didn't back down from sensitive topics. We'll never get to the point where a majority of the audience takes games seriously as an artistic medium though without doing it regardless of how many people really get it right now, or cry that developers went too far (I'm thinking of Modern Warfare 2's recent scandal in particular here, and regardless of how much I hate Activision I can at least give them credit for not throwing Infinity Ward to the wolves and cutting the scene on this one).

[sephfire]

Originally Posted by SwordBreaker

Good video as usual. Great job in wrapping up such a big topic in under 10 minutes.

Regarding that Fallujah game, people often forget about the suffering from the other side of the spectrum. I've been personally against this game because many Muslim civilians died in that battle as well in addition to the American soldiers. Nonetheless, you've made some very interesting points surrounding the controversy.

Keep it up, man. I may highlight this video in a post for the site I work for soon.

Yeah, like I said, there are definitely good arguments to be made on both sides of the issue. Many people who had seen early gameplay weren't convinced that Atomic would handle the game's subject matter appropriately.

And then there are the poor relatives of the soldiers who died there. When I was trimming down the Fox News segment for time, one of the parts I hated to lose most was what the soldier's mother said. You can tell that Fox brought her into the discussion to be incendiary, but she was very reasonable. She said something to the tune of: "If I were to watch this game and have to see my son get killed, it would be terrible. On the other hand, if the game was trying to be a realistic historical account and my son was not included, that would be upsetting too."

By cutting that out, I get the feeling I've painted her to look like Fox's tool, which she really, really wasn't.

[Vivi22]

Originally Posted by sephfire

And then there are the poor relatives of the soldiers who died there. When I was trimming down the Fox News segment for time, one of the parts I hated to lose most was what the soldier's mother said. You can tell that Fox brought her into the discussion to be incendiary, but she was very reasonable. She said something to the tune of: "If I were to watch this game and have to see my son get killed, it would be terrible. On the other hand, if the game was trying to be a realistic historical account and my son was notincluded, that would be upsetting too."

By cutting that out, I get the feeling I've painted her to look like Fox's tool, which she really, really wasn't.

When watching the video I kind of figured she was there to be Fox's tool simply because they brought out two people involved with the game and then the mother of a soldier killed there. I don't need to be a genius to figure out where they were trying to go by doing that, especially when they try to blatantly undermine the developers credibility. Glad to hear she was reasonable on the full program and it is a shame to have had to cut her out.

Her comments wouldn't have had a lot to do with the point you were trying to make at the time though so I'm not sure where the happy middle ground of making your point while showing her respectable opinion would really be. At the very least, you did link to the full show for those interested in hearing the full debate (for lack of a better term considering Fox is involved).

[BardicKnowledge]

Similarly, lots of titles have left out anything that could lead to controversy. For instance, it is more or less respectful to Holocaust victims and survivors that we never find Jewish families in German buildings playing Call of Duty? Personally, the idea of rescuing hidden survivors seems very cool -- it'd be even cooler if we saw the soldier's emotional reactions to the horror they endured.

While I understand that it might have offended people (and I'm not saying that they aren't entitled to that opinion), is it worse that there hasn't been a single AAA World War II based game that acknowledges anything but the most remote existance of what actually happened?

Edit: Also sephfire, excellent job as usual -- looking forward to the next one!

[Native Jovian]

Originally Posted by SoulinEther

I think the problem is that the “video game” as it is today is not an appropriate medium for handling delicate, controversial, and non-fictional issues, especially modern/present non-fictional issues, since video games are used primarily as a source of entertainment through doing – passing on information would be secondary or tertiary in the experience.

Originally Posted by Malaki-LEGEND.sys

I agree with this. The primary function of games is entertainment.

But why is this the case? Why aren't games able to pass on information, and why is entertainment antithetical to education? Hell, Sephfire has a whole movie about video games and learning. Being entertained doesn't hinder learning, it actually helps it. You can't teach anyone anything if you put them to sleep in the process, can you?

What's the difference between Six Days in Fallujah and Black Hawk Down?