Gaming Morality: Massacres, etc.

[WSUCougar]

This topic springs from a discussion on Consimworld about a new game, entitled Resistance is Not Futile (RINF) by Firefight Games (http://firefight-games.com/), which simulates the 1943 Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. In that tragic event, desperate Jewish resistance fighters fought a brief and ultimately hopeless battle of survival against the SS and other German military units sent to annihilate them. The issues being brought up on the CSW bulletin board are ones regarding tact and moral sensitivity (or lack thereof), and the shock and outrage that someone could design such a game.

My position is that it's a very fine moral line to draw. Specifically, critics were noting that a tactical game based entirely on the theme of liquidating (killing/murdering) Jews (as the German player in the game) goes way beyond. Some, however, were okay with it if it was abstracted. If moving a squad of SS troops into a building, rolling dice to kill the occupants, and then burning down the building is abhorrent, is it okay to move an SS counter into the Warsaw hex in an operational-level wargame, and declare "I am liquidating the ghetto" as per the rules?

What about games set in ancient times? The decision to slaughter the retreating units in Total War? Sacking cities? Vikings raids? What about modern airwars? Terror bombing of London? Fire bombing of Tokyo?

As gamers, do we assume every aspect of the role we are playing?

Anyway, I thought I would raise the issue for you FOFC folks.

[Izulde]

As gamers, do we assume every aspect of the role we are playing?



No.

And as with every moral issue, it's really all a matter of personal preference and threshold.

[Ksyrup]

it's really all a matter of personal preference and threshold.

Kinda like perfume.

[WSUCougar]

God forbid we actually discuss anything around here.

[Ksyrup]

Don't mind me; I'm sure someone will be around sooner or later.

[WSUCougar]

Don't mind me; I'm sure someone will be around sooner or later.
Didn't mean to snap at you...it just gets frustrating sometimes when you post something, hopeful of a worthwhile discussion, and instead you quickly get a one-word + one-line response and a divergent attempt at humor.

Oh well. :p

[Kodos]

Look, I don't think we even play the Ospreys this season, so we likely won't have to slaughter them.

[Izulde]

God forbid we actually discuss anything around here.

Well, to me, it *is* a matter of a case-by-case basis.

If you're looking for my own treshold... you probably won't find one. Artistic and creative expression requires that controversial content such as this be permitted to be made, regardless or maybe even perhaps because of the furor it raises. It allows us to explore just what our individual boundaries are and possibly cause us to reconsider some things.

That being said, I could see creations that are known to be controversial to be required to include some kind of warning/ratings system (if not the ESRB one, which I think does a pretty good job all in all).

[Ksyrup]

Didn't mean to snap at you...it just gets frustrating sometimes when you post something, hopeful of a worthwhile discussion, and instead you quickly get a one-word + one-line response and a divergent attempt at humor.

Oh well. :p

Not a problem.

[WSUCougar]

I was just taken aback by the outrage, given that most wargamers (I'm assuming) play or have played games that involve all kinds of horrendous acts.

Izulde, as a CK player, surely you've had occasion to assasinate plenty of annoying in-laws or heirs to the throne. We do it with a click of a button, sometimes gleefully ("Die, you hair-lipped bastard!"). Yet people see a game about a particularly sensitive topic and freak out.

[Drake]

Part of the question, I suppose, is how long we have to be extra sensitive about the Holocaust as compared to other historic slaughters. I'm not sure I have an answer to that one. I'm not sure there is a good answer.

[Warhammer]

I agree with you. It blows my mind that many players of ASL will play the game with out any problems. But heaven forbid you mention Mila 18 (Warsaw Ghetto scenario), they'll condemn you as a Nazi and won't play with you.

Oddly enough, the only thing that differs from most ASL scenarios is that as the Jewish player, you get to pick up weapons off the dead SS troops and use them.

[Drake]

dola...

Would anyone play a "9/11: Escape the Twin Towers" game?

[Izulde]

I was just taken aback by the outrage, given that most wargamers (I'm assuming) play or have played games that involve all kinds of horrendous acts.

Izulde, as a CK player, surely you've had occasion to assasinate plenty of annoying in-laws or heirs to the throne. We do it with a click of a button, sometimes gleefully ("Die, you hair-lipped bastard!"). Yet people see a game about a particularly sensitive topic and freak out.

I think the key thing you hit on here is the phrase "particularly sensitive".

For most videogamers, I would say that anything pre-20th century has nowhere near the impact of 20th and 21st century setting games. Probably this is due to the fact that the people involved in those times are more or less dead and it's considered ancient history.

This is opposed to World War II and more specifically, the anti-Semitic stance of Hitler's National Socialists. Not only is it much more recent, but the issues are still with us today. White supremacy, while a fringe movement, is still around, as is anti-Semitism. Furthermore, there's still a lot people from the WW2 era who are still alive and so for them, it's not history.

It's memory.

[Drake]

Most war gamers don't have a problem simulating their own atrocities in Viet Nam era war games.

[WSUCougar]

Would anyone play a "9/11: Escape the Twin Towers" game?
Great example. My instant response is "Of course not."

How about a Pearl Harbor game? The Alamo? (these are "military" by nature, does that matter?)

[Warhammer]

Let's not forget that the Warsaw Ghetto is considered a battle in a military sense. The Nazis were systematically killing them, and then the Jews rose up and started to fight them. If I remember, the initial ferocity of the Jewish resistance forced the Nazis to pull back and reorganize before going back in.

I guess what I am saying is that 9/11 and what happened in Warsaw are two different things.

[Raven Hawk]

. . .because of the furor it raises.

Don't you go raising any furors on me.


My guess is that the pain is still to close to some people. However, if this were a game about Skeksis obliterating a Mystic uprising in a fictional world where everybody looked like a puppet, I doubt there would be much drama about it. Thing is that we know too much about the real history of the situation and that history has strong, bad (not strongbad) feelings tied to it.

[WSUCougar]

But it's okay - there's enough "distance" - to, say, play a Bulge game as the Germans, specifically Kampfgruppe Peiper?

[molson]

dola...

Would anyone play a "9/11: Escape the Twin Towers" game?

No, but I would probably play a military strategy game with modern elements of terrorism, religious fanaticism, etc that had a realistic premise/background. So maybe the “military” distinction is a factor for me.

[Warhammer]

But it's okay - there's enough "distance" - to, say, play a Bulge game as the Germans, specifically Kampfgruppe Peiper?

But the atrocities of the troops in that battle are not remembered by the general public.

[Honolulu_Blue]

It's an interesting question. I think it really depends on the "feel" of the game and game's system.

I've played a few different "Alamo" games. One miniature game at a Dallas Con some 20+ years (sweet jeebus!) ago and one of those paper and cardboard type games as well (Amazingly enough, as the Texans, I actually won the cardboard game the one time I played it). In both games, I don't think anyone was ever uncomfortable with the theme of the game or anything of the like. It was very much a "strategy"/"military" game.

Same goes for many WWII games. Be they broad in scope like an "Axis & Allies" type of game, or a game that had a narrower scope, for example, like some game focusing on the "Battle of the Bulge", if the game's focus is on strategy and the military aspects of the conflict, I don't think either game would a moral issue.

I've played "Axis & Allies" as the Germans many, many times. I speak in a horrible German accent, yell "Blitzkrieg", etc, etc., but I've never had any sort of moral qualms about it.

I think the moral issues could arise when the game or the system starts to focus on things outside of "strategy" or the "military." The game you're describing does seem to straddle the line a bit. I'm not sure. I would have to read the rules and maybe play it to see if it were distasteful in any way.

In general, though, I can't really think of any strategy board game or video game that I've ever played that I felt raised any serious moral issues despite being able to (and committing) massacares and the like. Then again, I could easily see such a game existing. That 9/11 one is a good example, or something like a "Sim Prison Camp".

[JPhillips]

I had a similar issue with Paradox and HOI2. They made a big deal about not including the Jewish massacres or the terror bombings as events. There is no mention of any of the atrocities committed by the Germans or Soviets and only one event relating to Nanjing for the Japanese.

Is it right for gamers to scrub away the unpleasant parts of history and only focus on tactics? Should we blindly role through Europe as Germany without ever having to face what those decisions meant in real life?

I don't have an answer, and God knows I love to role Germany through the Soviets in HOI2, but it is something I've struggled with.

[Ajaxab]

This discussion is as interesting for what is in games as what isn't. Consider the countless colonization games that conveniently gloss over the slave trade. One might even include something like Railroad Tycoon's ignoring of the treatment of Native Americans or the Chinese in the building of a nineteenth century train empire.

For me these games are not about some attempt to represent or simulate historical events, but rather the representation of simulation of the game designer's interpretation of these events. The games seem to be as much historiography as history. Can we blame Sid Meier for leaving out racial tensions that surfaced historically? If we see these games as a facsimile of history, then perhaps yes. If we don't take that perspective, then we can look at Meier's take and evaluate his interpretation of history from the game and move to answer the question from there.

Definitely an interesting discussion. I wonder if the World of Warcraft funeral crashing discussion plays into this thread in some way.

[Buccaneer]

God forbid we actually discuss anything around here.

You forgot to make it a football reference. :rolleyes:

[Anthony]

Part of the question, I suppose, is how long we have to be extra sensitive about the Holocaust as compared to other historic slaughters. I'm not sure I have an answer to that one. I'm not sure there is a good answer.

that's easy - as long as Jews control the media and are involved in the running of our government.

[Drake]

Damn it, HA. I was waiting for Mel Gibson to join the forum and make that comment.

[st.cronin]

Please ban me from this board forever for being a racist troll.

fixed

mods?

[EagleFan]

Figures HA would make his appearance to once again say "Look at me, I'm an a-hole"


As for the topic. I think it's pretty clear cut in most areas. It depends on what the simulation is about. If it's a WW2 simulation that is about the war and may include parts such as the Holocaust and Pearl Harbor because they are part of the entire picture, that is one thing. If the entire purporse is to just simulate an attrocity, that crosses the line of good taste (example: making a game to simulate being a southern slave owner pre civil war, there would be no purpose for that other than to antagonize).

[Drake]

I wouldn't be opposed to a strategy game where one played Jewish elements resisting Nazis and the Holocaust, but other than the Warsaw ghetto uprising, as mentioned, it wouldn't be very historically accurate. However, if it was set up true-to-scale (in terms of resources and arrayed forces), it would be an absolutely emotionally brutalizing exercise in comprehending the tragedy.

[sachmo71]

Usually, the atrocities of a battle are outside of the scope of the battle itself. When the issue is in doubt, tactics are easy and fun to represent. When the route begins, the battle part is over.

As far as the strategic side of things, for example the Paradox decision to leave out terror bombing and the Holocaust, I don't have a problem with that decision, because they were insignificant to the military operations. Since they do at least attempt to model politics in the game, you could make the case for including them, but the decision was made to leave them out for obvious reasons and I think it was a fair decision.

The world is a sensitive place. If you are going to publish a game, and feel the need to add historical events that are controversial, you need to be prepared for a backlash. I can see how it wouldn't be worth the trouble.

[Wolfpack]

I think what separates Warsaw from the Alamo was the fact that while the Alamo defenders all perished, Santa Ana wasn't committing genocide against all the other whites in Texas at the time. He was merely trying to put down a rebellion in a Mexican province. However, the Warsaw uprising was put down by a military/paramilitary/police machine that was systematically slaughtering millions of Jews elsewhere at the time.

In that regard, one can play Santa Ana in a board game and crush the Texans and not feel bad about it. On the other hand, I do think it'd be hard not to think about what you're doing as the German player putting down the Warsaw uprising, knowing that in the background "fellow Germans" are busy killing other Jews at Auschwitz and similar charnal houses.

There's something else to playing as the Wehrmacht in most wargames like Axis & Allies or Hearts of Iron. The German military of 1939-1942 was simply one of the most awesome military forces ever put into use. Who wouldn't want to be leading it? Also, wargamers probably by nature are alternate historians, trying to find out if they could do better than the historical result and what would have been the outcome (at least militarily) if they did do better than the historical. That's why playing as the Germans (or Confederates in Civil War games or the British in Revolutionary War games, etc) holds such appeal. It's also why we play all our sports games. We want to do better than the historical precedent (even if, when one stops to think about it, doing better may mean more tragic things happened than was historical).

[Anthony]

you people need to be able to discern between racism and mere opinionism.


my post isn't anything most conspiracy theorists haven't already mentioned. i don't care enough about this subject to comment further.

[Butter]

I have no problem with it. No Jews are actually being slaughtered. It's just a game. I'm not saying there aren't lines that can't be crossed that would make it unpalatable to me, but in this context, it doesn't cross my personal line of disgust.

[Passacaglia]

I've been thinking about this a bit since the thread was posted, and it's tough. I don't know about this game, but if I were into wargames or whatever, I think this one might be too creepy for me. But that's my personal perspective, coming from being Jewish, and having seen the Warsaw Ghetto and concentration camps.

On the other hand, someone mentioned how games like colonization try to circumvent the slave trade -- meanwhile, in Europa Universalis, you actually trade slaves like a commodity. I thought that was a bit creepy as well, but I overlooked it. I think part of it may be that the slave trade is just a minor aspect of EU -- I don't know about this war game, but it sounds like the whole idea is simulating the ghetto uprising. But I'm sure a lot of it comes from my own perspective.

[Anthony]

i'm not into this era of warfare. i find the Medieval era more fascinating, even the Roman Empire/Alexander the Great periods.

[Ksyrup]

For me these games are not about some attempt to represent or simulate historical events, but rather the representation of simulation of the game designer's interpretation of these events. The games seem to be as much historiography as history. Can we blame Sid Meier for leaving out racial tensions that surfaced historically? If we see these games as a facsimile of history, then perhaps yes. If we don't take that perspective, then we can look at Meier's take and evaluate his interpretation of history from the game and move to answer the question from there.

I'm not sure I'd even couch it in terms of his "interpretation of history." Look at the addition of religion in the game. He knew that adding it would be potentially problematic and took that into account. But he didn't leave it out of the previous versions because he had some vision of history that didn't include religion. It was just such a controversial topic, he didn't want to inject his game with it. And really, the way he added it was about as noncontroversial as you can get.

I'd argue he has left slavery out of the game for the same reason, not because it has anything to do with his interpretation of history. He's just trying to avoid controversy. It's similar to the decisions sports text simmers have to make - what's the balance between making the game as realistic as possible, while at the same time not hurting the game overall (be it with controversy, mindnumbing detail for the sake of "realism," or whatever it might be).

[Ajaxab]

Well stated on the point about religion. However, getting back to the initial game scenario with the Warsaw uprising, it would seem that an interpretation of that event is being offered to the game's players. Some of them are reacting against that interpretation. I don't think I'm necessarily disagreeing with Ksyrup here, but I am interested in what delineates an interpretation of history in a game from one that is not. Is Civilization an interpretation of history? I would argue that it is in some respects. Even though events don't occur as they did in history as the game is played, it still models an interpretation of how technological/spiritual/cultural development occurs thereby interpreting history for its players.

It would seem that any time one uses history in some way as part of a game experience that they are interpreting that history for the player. IMHO, this interpretation seems unavoidable.

[WSUCougar]

I personally think Civilization is sufficiently abstracted such that any moral conundrums are removed. Though there is a semblance of historical accuracy in terms of civs, unit types, wonders, etc., I quickly lose any attachment to them simulating an actual civilization. It becomes "my" civ. In which case I see no reason why things like slaves, massacres, and such should be kept out of the game.

[Passacaglia]

I personally think Civilization is sufficiently abstracted such that any moral conundrums are removed. Though there is a semblance of historical accuracy in terms of civs, unit types, wonders, etc., I quickly lose any attachment to them simulating an actual civilization. It becomes "my" civ. In which case I see no reason why things like slaves, massacres, and such should be kept out of the game.

I think that makes there even more reason to keep those things out of the game. You're not even simulating a civilization -- since it becomes "your" civ, it seems even creepier to do those things. But I dunno. I think I see your point, though. The way you play, it's a game, not a glorification of dark spots of our history. Anyway, in some sense, they do have elements similar to these -- you've got your martial law, your oppressive governments, your destroying towns, your nuclear bombs. I guess it's a question of where you draw the line.

[WSUCougar]

Is it right for gamers to scrub away the unpleasant parts of history and only focus on tactics?
That's the kicker, isn't it? In examining my own gaming persona - and the vast majority of my gaming is solitaire - I find that I rarely assign a historically-accurate "role playing" element to commanding historical armies or nations. For example, if I play a Civil War Brigade series game, I don't play the Confederates mentally different than I do the Federals. The goals and victory conditions are certainly structured differently, but I'm not "thinking like a Confederate" or "putting down a rebellion" while I'm pushing the counters around on the map. I love the historical flavor of games, and I like to immerse myself in that sense, but I don't take the mental leap farther than that.

Likewise, I don't feel any guilt about doing the best I can with the German side in a WWII game. As a student of history I am well-versed in what Nazi Germany represented and the evils it performed. But the fact remains that World War II was an epic conflict, and in terms of military history it is fascinating and wonderfully "game-able."

[Jonathan Ezarik]

What about games set in ancient times? The decision to slaughter the retreating units in Total War? Sacking cities? Vikings raids? What about modern airwars? Terror bombing of London? Fire bombing of Tokyo?

Are there games on the fire bombing of Tokyo or Dresden? And the Battle of London games I'm aware of focus on the RAF instead of the actions of the Luftwaffe.

To me, the problem with a simulation of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising is that it is purely military against civilians. If the situation arises in a strategic game and is handled in an abstract manner, then I have no problem with it since it does reflect history and is in a game where the main objective is to defeat your military opponent. But a tactical game on the slaughter of civilians is different, and this goes for any time period. If the battle is against military combatants, then go for it. But if it's just a civilian opponent, that's where I draw the line.

Now, having said that, I have no problem with this game being produced. It is history, and the more people know of this the better. Just don't expect me to play it.

[Surtt]

For some reason ROME: total war is a game that bothers me.

Wiping out entire cities so you can repopulate them with more friendly people.
Marrying off your 12 year old daughters to 45 year old men.
(I realized it is historically accurate)


It does show how morals have changed.

[WSUCougar]

To me, the problem with a simulation of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising is that it is purely military against civilians. If the situation arises in a strategic game and is handled in an abstract manner, then I have no problem with it since it does reflect history and is in a game where the main objective is to defeat your military opponent. But a tactical game on the slaughter of civilians is different, and this goes for any time period. If the battle is against military combatants, then go for it. But if it's just a civilian opponent, that's where I draw the line.

Now, having said that, I have no problem with this game being produced. It is history, and the more people know of this the better. Just don't expect me to play it.
Point taken. However, as a point for discussion, the uprising was just that - an armed uprising. I know it was a hopeless undertaking, but it still began as an armed insurgency.

[Anthony]

For some reason ROME: total war is a game that bothers me.

Wiping out entire cities so you can repopulate them with more friendly people.
Marrying off your 12 year old daughters to 45 year old men.
(I realized it is historically accurate)


It does show how morals have changed.

then why play any game that involves death? seriously.

[WSUCougar]

then why play any game that involves death? seriously.
Well, that's kind of the weird direction this discussion can drift.

[Surtt]

then why play any game that involves death? seriously.

Death is one thing, genocide is another.

As horrible as Hitler was, even he did not kill every man, woman, and child when he took a city.

[Anthony]

Death is one thing, genocide is another.

As horrible as Hitler was, even he did not kill every man, woman, and child when he took a city.


when you take over a city in the Total War series you have 3 options:

1. exterminate the entire city
2. sell all the citizens as slaves
3. let everyone live (excluding the soldiers you killed)

if there were no such thing as taking over land that doesn't belong to you we wouldn't be in America right now.

i've always found it funny that people affix so much value to games. as if a person in a game has the same value as the real person it's representing.

[Surtt]

Dola,

I know that was a terrible example, considering the holocaust.

[Anthony]

Well, that's kind of the weird direction this discussion can drift.

i just found it weird. it's one thing to want to stay away from quasi-controversial games dealing with sensitive topics, another to want to stay away from any strategic war game period since it involves genocide of computer animated people.

[Surtt]

when you take over a city in the Total War series you have 3 options:

1. exterminate the entire city
2. sell all the citizens as slaves
3. let everyone live (excluding the soldiers you killed)

if there were no such thing as taking over land that doesn't belong to you we wouldn't be in America right now.

i've always found it funny that people affix so much value to games. as if a person in a game has the same value as the real person it's representing.

We are discussing real life morals applied to game play.
If you see no correlation, then why are you posting in this thread?

[sachmo71]

We are discussing real life morals applied to game play.
If you see no correlation, then why are you posting in this thread?


Guess.

[rkmsuf]

Guess.

Because it's here?

[Anthony]

We are discussing real life morals applied to game play.
If you see no correlation, then why are you posting in this thread?

i do not see the correlation. morals, or morality, is your belief system of right and wrong. but how do you interject morality with regards to inanimate objects (video game characters)? the act of pointing a gun at a person's head and pulling the trigger is wrong, but is it so when that person is a character made up of millions of pixels/polygons - essentially an assortment of colored squares? i don't know about you, but i know i for one can separate the actions i would do to a live person from what i'd do to a video game character.

that's like getting up in arms over actions done in the GTA series. i wouldn't want to go on a rampage like that in real life, but in a make believe city with people who don't really exist...? c'mon.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

i do not see the correlation. morals, or morality, is your belief system of right and wrong. but how do you interject morality with regards to inanimate objects (video game characters)? the act of pointing a gun at a person's head and pulling the trigger is wrong, but is it so when that person is a character made up of millions of pixels/polygons - essentially an assortment of colored squares? i don't know about you, but i know i for one can separate the actions i would do to a live person from what i'd do to a video game character.


Would you have a problem with a video game version of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising where you are a SS soldier gunning down Jews?

[Easy Mac]

dola...

Would anyone play a "9/11: Escape the Twin Towers" game?

Just a note, that would be an extremely boring game. Just running down stairs. Unless you played as a firefighter and had to go rescue them. Kind of like a life-like Mario bros. type game. Get in and get out. The last level could be trying to save one last person, only at the end you choose to live or save the person. Quite morbid, and it probably should be modified, but if we watched a movie where that was the plot, no one would really complain.

[Anthony]

Would you have a problem with a video game version of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising where you are a SS soldier gunning down Jews?

i would, but only because i associate Nazi Germany as "the bad guys". i don't like playing as the bad guys.

even in Medieval/Rome Total War i won't ever play as any of the Muslim countries. in M:TW i would normally be England or Italy (since i'm half-italian) or Denmark. not to say that Muslims are evil, but in light of 9/11 i lost the desire to play as them. and especially the movies i like ("Alexander", "Kingdom of Heaven", etc) they are normally portrayed as the "bad guys". just preference, actually.

now if you were to ask me the same question, but this time i'm not a SS soldier but a normal guy, i would probably play the game so long as it's fun. it would depend on the game. i wouldn't play the game just so i could "gun down Jews", i would do so only in the context of "am i a good guy/hero in this game?". when i comes to games i'm equal opportunity, i just want to have fun and de-stress.

[WSUCougar]

There's also the dicey question of "fun" or entertainment value in a game versus a realistic simulation. I thoroughly enjoy wargames - they are "fun" - and while I'm playing them I immerse myself enough that I celebrate my victories. At the same time, said victories may represent (simulate) the deaths of hundreds of thousands.

It's truly a weird topic.

[Anthony]

There's also the dicey question of "fun" or entertainment value in a game versus a realistic simulation. I thoroughly enjoy wargames - they are "fun" - and while I'm playing them I immerse myself enough that I celebrate my victories. At the same time, said victories may represent (simulate) the deaths of hundreds of thousands.

It's truly a weird topic.

i know exactly what you're talking about. one of the things i find funny about the Total War series is when you're in a battle and you wantonly send troops to their death to act as a diversion while your real force gets into position. it's so easy to think of that unit not as a group of men with families and children but simply as a strategic tool. of course, i assume this is quite similar to real life warfare, where casualties are to be expected and the individual lives of the pawns are not more valuable than the lives of the collective army. its easy to get caught up in trying to win the battle any way possible, and if that means you're left with 2 guys (out of hundreds) it's all right so long as the enemy is only left w/ 1 guy. after the battle is over and the fields are littered with the corpses of dead soldiers i always wonder "would i have been so cavalier with this soldier's life had i known a little more about him and he wasn't just another faceless warrior?".

it'd be neat if in these types of games you could scroll over a random soldier and get some type of background on him. does he have a wife? is he going to die a virgin? why did he become a soldier? i could honestly envision myself trying to avoid heavy fatalities with a certain unit if they were comprised mostly of married men who had children, perhaps i'd be quicker to send some other unit that had a majority of men who felt there was no higher honor than to die in battle. would just add another element of immersion i guess.

[WSUCougar]

I've often felt that games (board wargames or PC) really benefit from rules or design elements that take into account commitment levels, army morale, and similar aspects that keep the player from just using the units like chess pieces. Without such things, there's a natural tendency to just throw everything you've got at the enemy, since there are no real-life ramifications.

[Drake]

it'd be neat if in these types of games you could scroll over a random soldier and get some type of background on him. does he have a wife? is he going to die a virgin? why did he become a soldier? i could honestly envision myself trying to avoid heavy fatalities with a certain unit if they were comprised mostly of married men who had children, perhaps i'd be quicker to send some other unit that had a majority of men who felt there was no higher honor than to die in battle. would just add another element of immersion i guess.

That is a seriously great gaming idea.

[Honolulu_Blue]

I've often felt that games (board wargames or PC) really benefit from rules or design elements that take into account commitment levels, army morale, and similar aspects that keep the player from just using the units like chess pieces. Without such things, there's a natural tendency to just throw everything you've got at the enemy, since there are no real-life ramifications.

Agreed. Often, well at least 3-4 times a year, my friends and I get into a conversaton about why someone hasn't "re-made" X-Com or at least made a spiritual successor that's better than the original. While discussing improvements, I always mention how it would be ideal to give you soldiers personalty. I used to do it for my guys, but it would be fantastic if the game had something programmed into it.

I am thinking a mesh of some of the personalties you found in "Jagged Alliance" and the type of stuff you find in "Football Manager." I don't think you need the over-the-top stuff you find in "Jagged Alliance", but implementing some of the things there that affected game plan (e.g., Fidel refusing to stop shooting at an enemy until that guy was dead) and making the personalty conflicts and the like from "FM."

[WSUCougar]

Postscript: Firefight Games has cancelled the game Resistance is Not Futile, and the game designer may be seeking legal action for libel.