I think what Tom was attempting to get across, rather unsuccessfully, is that war seems to be glorified in video games (I agree), and it shouldn't be because of the very essence of what war is. And thus companies who sell unrealistic games based on war are profiting off of a terrible reality. War is simply treated as the narrative and an entertaining game is built around it. But if the war game was realistic and portrayed the cruelties of war, it wouldn't be entertaining and this obviously goes directly against what the entertainment industry is trying to accomplish. They're ultimately in the business of selling a game, and thus the game has to be fun. Unfortunately with the limitations of the video game medium and the desire to make a profit, war games will never be realistic enough.
People say well just join the military if you want a realistic experience but the fateful truth is that 1% of the US population is involved with the military. And thus these war games will serve as the closest exposure that most of the population will get to the real thing and thus it should be treated more seriously; especially when young kids are playing it. If kids have the desire to join the military after playing a war game, I'm sure it's not because they have a sudden urge to serve their country, or are overwhelmed with patriotism and selflessness. It's because they think it will be fun. And that is how 'entertaining' war games represent war, and that is where they get it wrong.
If this was truly about the horrors of war Tom should have been arguing against making war games in general because of how they glorify it. Greg can say all he wants about creating war stories that he hopes will get people to think about war, but this comes second to entertainment value. He wants to lure gamers in with entertainment to sell copies and then hope war will have an effect on them. I would guess that most of the people who play the game don't care about the war stories or the realities of war anyway. They want entertainment and more specifically, the multiplayer experience, which is what they are going to get. Thus video game companies profit off of a terrible reality and leave impressionable people with unrealistic perspectives of war.
@ArabrockermanX I agree with you. That's why if I every started a company and I felt the need for capital and the only avenue I could resort to was an IPO, I would make sure I had a majority of the voting shares.
IMO the video game industry is not one that should be publicly traded. When game developers answer to stockholders they make games they know have a better chance of selling and are pressured to release games quickly to make deadlines and quarterly earnings. Thus we are stuck with bug-ridden, patch-intensive, unoriginal games. There's no room for innovation or quality because company heads are all about maximizing profit; just an assembly line chucking out generic games to make a quick buck whenever possible.
Is this game third person or first person? I remember seeing another video with an archer who was aiming his bow in first person. Didn't see any first person here.
Nxss-effa-sim's comments