@Scorpion1813 That first statement is just plain false; how would a game developer ever create realism (in a video game, no less)? That's simply impossible. Authenticity is a recreation of something, but realism is basically making it so that the game is actually war. I don't think that's a good thing for a video game to do, especially considering that it's meant to be entertainment, first and foremost.
I agree with the need for more serious games, I was saying that authenticity should have it's limits though. Having blood and gore for the sake of having blood and gore doesn't automatically make a game more mature, for example. The gaming media is a much more open form of entertainment for children, it's something that's basically a trademark of kids. Have you ever seen a kids talking about books and television at the age younger ages that didn't involve cartoons? Video games ARE childrens toys (in a sense that they're most commonly found in the hands of children), and that's respectfully why the media thinks they are childrens toys.
I also never said that FPS's should be made for 10 year olds. My original statement was "That's fine and all, but I just prefer the experience of authenticity that won't be landing in the consoles of 10 year old's who think that it will be better than the last FPS, only to get bodies with decapitated heads that are just lying on the ground." How many times have you run into an annoying child while playing online of a console FPS? Developers aren't making games with the intents of little children enjoying them, it's just that kids have a way of convincing their parents to buy these games for them, which leads me back to my previous point that Video games are definitely geared towards children, because parents usually have no idea what they're buying their kids as far as gaming goes.
Your arguement was that it was wrong for Danger Close to depict war like they are with their marketing, but you contradicted yourself by saying it's the parents fault for buying the games for their kids that these developers were intent on making for adults. It's not disrespectful to give regards to an actual conflict in this world, but with the confusion of the definitions of such words as "authenticity" and "realism" it's hard to meet someone who shares the exact same feelings on a subject matter like this.
@Scorpion1813 As I recall, they didn't label it as a realistic experience. This is an "authentic" experience, which is quite a difference: the game was made with the intentions of paying respect to those who are in the military, while also being an entertainment product (that's what Danger Close does for a living). They never claim realism to what happens in this game, they're just using the tag-line of authenticity so that this game would be a more clear depiction of what happens in war. Of course it isn't realistic, but then, no game really should be, because then the next step would be just signing up for the military and recording everything that you see on the battlefield.
@Gelugon_baat That's fine and all, but I just prefer the experience of authenticity that won't be landing in the consoles of 10 year old's who think that it will be better than the last FPS, only to get bodies with decapitated heads that are just lying on the ground. You are to taboo material as I am to a more friendly approach: I'm not saying I like seeing the same thing in "authentic" shooters over and over again, I just like it when a bit of discretion is put in to make it less threatening.
@Gelugon_baat @Scorpion1813 I don't think many consumers or promoters would be into real life terror that these soldiers are apart of. When I said horrifying, I was referencing the killing of innocent bystanders, pain and suffering among our friendly ranks, and a lot more that I don't even feel comfortable saying. This game was made with taste and authenticity in mind, and authenticity can understandably only go so far for the sake of good taste.
@Scorpion1813 That incorporating basic mechanics into a game that is marketed as "authentic" is "sickening and shameful"? No, I go the basic jest of that. I could go on about why making a game as realistic as what Tom and the marketing team want is something that would be horrifying to both audiences and people who actually participate in the act of war, but I'll still leave it at this: it's a video game.
@Gelugon_baat I often think that opinions can be stupid; this is one of those cases. Even if I had no differing opinion on the matter, I just think it's really obtuse on Tom's part to mention a marketing gimmick and evolve it into the comment "sickening and shameful", when the developers are just doing what everyone else is doing, especially considering the fact that it is definitely an over-exaggeration on Tom's part about this game's authenticity.
I'm sorry Tom, but this is a very stupid article. I think the point that most developers try to prove before anything else can be said is that they're making a VIDEO GAME. How would you like it if you had to restart the game for being unfortunate enough to actually take a bullet to the head? Or better yet, let's have the disc spontaneously combust once you're on the brink of death. I think that their "authenticity" tactic with marketing only goes so far, seeing as how this is a video-game; the idea of realism shouldn't be exaggerated to the point where we get to see the final moments of a soldiers life before he horrifically dies; are you saying that the realism should be on par with the suffering that these soldiers go through? I think that Danger Close came into this development with expectations of real life war scenarios, not point-blank realism that is matched to a tee of what the real thing is. They simply put the "respect for soldiers" spiel there because that is actually a respectful statement. Refuting with the point that games like this are profiting off of the deaths of soldiers is also kind of dumb, especially considering that this is the millionth game with this setting; now it's automatically wrong that they're making money, all because they said something that you exaggerated? Come on Tom.
@Katmando4Life I think that would be more fitting for a comment that is more grammatically incorrect than this one; you're just sounding like an ass here.
Iridescent406's comments