12-17-2007, 06:57 PM
I suppose the prevalent (though admittedly, overused) theme of WWII shooters was born from the success of Medal of Honor for the PSone, which was a critically acclaimed and a commercially successful game. While not the 1st WWII FPS game, it had good pacing and a decent story (coincidentally, Stephen Spelberg wrote the story for the game). Born out of the game's success, the sequels followed and others followed the same direction, much like other good games (the Resident Evil franchise and similar games come to mind) borrowing the same theme and ideas while implementing new ones in the process. They don't really need to be made, they're just really profitable for companies to make them, if done correctly.
Let's also not forget that these games were built from the ground up as a form of entertainment, and thus built to entertain us. As such, not all aspects of war are covered, such as a 20 Km hike towards the battlefield won't exactly make for a fun game, nor will clearing out dead bodies of fallen allies and enemies will make for a positive experience. The games don't exactly have the intention of desensitizing war for everyone much like how fighting games don't teach you how to fight or how to tackle a bear in a real life situation (god forbid, if whatever Xiao Yu does in Tekken is an effective anti-bear martial art), its just there to entertain people.
I believe it is up to the person playing to make his or her own views on war. It's totally up to the person if one would see it as a fun orchestra of explosions or a tragic tale of suffering, but as I have said earlier, people who play video games clearly distinguish whats in a video game and whats in real life.
There's just a lot of things good about these games, I would just suggest trying to play one for a bit and see if it gets you hooked (Preferably something like Call of Duty).
America's Army is a special case though, as it was built from the ground up as a recruitment tool/propaganda for recruitment for the US army, though its success for its intention is very questionable. The only data I've read on its effectiveness as a recruitment tool is that 1 out of 5 people who enlisted in the US army in 2003 have played the game (America's Army was released in 2002). Still, this data is barely conclusive to judge the game's effects on its target audience, as many other factors have to be considered such as the time period's distance from 9/11 (where I'm assuming that there was a sharp increase in people who enlisted for the US military), and other factors.
Let's also not forget that these games were built from the ground up as a form of entertainment, and thus built to entertain us. As such, not all aspects of war are covered, such as a 20 Km hike towards the battlefield won't exactly make for a fun game, nor will clearing out dead bodies of fallen allies and enemies will make for a positive experience. The games don't exactly have the intention of desensitizing war for everyone much like how fighting games don't teach you how to fight or how to tackle a bear in a real life situation (god forbid, if whatever Xiao Yu does in Tekken is an effective anti-bear martial art), its just there to entertain people.
I believe it is up to the person playing to make his or her own views on war. It's totally up to the person if one would see it as a fun orchestra of explosions or a tragic tale of suffering, but as I have said earlier, people who play video games clearly distinguish whats in a video game and whats in real life.
There's just a lot of things good about these games, I would just suggest trying to play one for a bit and see if it gets you hooked (Preferably something like Call of Duty).
America's Army is a special case though, as it was built from the ground up as a recruitment tool/propaganda for recruitment for the US army, though its success for its intention is very questionable. The only data I've read on its effectiveness as a recruitment tool is that 1 out of 5 people who enlisted in the US army in 2003 have played the game (America's Army was released in 2002). Still, this data is barely conclusive to judge the game's effects on its target audience, as many other factors have to be considered such as the time period's distance from 9/11 (where I'm assuming that there was a sharp increase in people who enlisted for the US military), and other factors.
