I just started playing COD Black Ops Cold War because I got it through my PlayStation Plus subscription and wanted to try it out. I’ve previously played some others like Modern Warfare (1 and 2) and WWII. While it always felt a bit over the top and propaganda-ish, I really liked it for the blockbuster feeling and just turning your mind off and enjoying the set pieces. However, Cold War has a section in Vietnam and I suddenly started feeling really uncomfortable and just turned the game off.
In WWII you can easily feel like the “defender”, and even Modern Warfare felt like fighting a very specific organisation that wanted to kill millions. Here however it just becomes so hard to explain why I’m happily mowing down hundreds of clearly Vietnamese locals that I was unable to turn my mind off and just enjoy the spectacle.
I turned to the internet and started browsing and found this article and I really agree with what the author is saying.
I don’t know if I will be continuing the campaign or not, but I just feel that I don’t want to support these kinds of minimizations of military interventions.
I just wish there were more high budget / setpiece games that don’t glorify real life wars. Spec Ops The Line was amazing in that sense, but it’s also quite old already.
I would love to hear your opinions on this subject.
We definitely disagree on the latter. It was harrowing, but the way it handled its themes was fascinating and the gaming culture would be lesser without it.
We don’t expect all books and movies to be “fun”, why should games all be? We can see other forms of engagement and value in other media.
I’m not sure if we’re talking about the same thing when we say “fun”. When I say fun, I mean entertaining. I find horror games distressing but that’s part of the entertainment. I find grand strategy games confusing for hours but the process of learning is part of the entertainment. I find competitive games often anxiety-inducing but that’s part of the entertainment.
I don’t think all games need to be games of entertainment, though. I often argue as much. However, that argument is intended to include things like the stock market and serious games.
Hellblade is clearly meant to be a game of entertainment. My issue with it is that it puts its message first and puts the player experience second.
I have no problem with games having messages they wish to bring to light. But, at the end of the day, it’s still a game. The message needs to be presented in the context of a gaming experience. I found Hellblade hamfisted. Strip the message away and all you have is a poor action game. I think something that makes gaming such an interesting artistic medium is that you can present your ideas by way of interactions. I think that’s largely what made Spec Ops: The Line so poignant. It was a solid action game first and foremost. You, as a player, were having a blast. Then, the game decides to ask you, by way of a big reveal, why you were having so much fun. I feel that’s a much better approach to delivering a message.
If you define fun by “having a blast” then we are talking about the same thing. Why wouldn’t a game be valid if it’s about delivering a message above moment to moment action? Strip the message away and obviously it’s lesser for it. Because it’s not a message plus an entirely separate mechanical system, it’s about what everything means in context. Rather than focusing on making flashy combos, it’s more interesting to ponder over what is it supposed to represent and what is actually happening.
It’s a little funny though that I did consider Spec Ops as another example, and that I have seen people judging it the same way that you are doing to Hellblade, that it was a mediocre military FPS, but many rebutted that even its lackluster gameplay is supposed to contribute the commentary. In the same way you praise of Spec Ops, I don’t think Hellblade is nearly as bad in that aspect as you say, As an action game it is serviceable, but the action is not the point.
If you argue for serious games but only in the context of the gamification of business and education, you are still glossing over a whole multitude of media that is more about exploring ideas than moment-to-moment thrills, something other media have in plenty, and something which games have incredible potential for. You are thinking of typical games solely in terms of pop culture. There is a lot more to a medium than pop culture and strictly functional tools, and you are making that to be a massive abyss where nothing has worth.
You argue that Hellblade needs to be interpreted in context. I argue that Hellblade felt like opening a book only to find it full of thumbtacks and being asked to appreciate the context as to why it contains nothing but thumbtacks. If my definition of a “good book” requires a narrative told through words, I’m clearly not going to consider Thumbtacks: A Story of Bleeding Fingers a good book (Note: I am being a bit disingenuous here as Hellblade is very clearly a game but I hope my point gets across none-the-less)
Is the issue one of my expectations not being met? Sure. Is my definition of gaming too narrow? Perhaps so. But really, I think we likely agree about the definition of games in broad strokes and are in disagreement simply in the case of Hellblade. I suspect the biggest hurdle between us is not so much in our definitions of what a game is but rather in our definitions of what art is. If that’s the case, then I politely defer to you. I’m not much interested in debating what art is nor its value. You seem like a better spokesperson than I on that front.
I define a “good game” as one with a set of rules where the players have to make interesting decisions. I feel Hellblade focused more on its message than in meeting that definition. You seem to have gotten more mileage out of the game. Fair enough.