Like I said in the last post, video games are pretty violent. So it should be little surprise that so many games involve war. I mean, 'war' and 'violence' go together like peanut butter and jelly, or peanut butter and jelly and bread. It so happens that most people only really know about fighting wars comes through media, including video games. But video games, like almost everything else ever, gets some things pretty wrong when it comes to how good men and women blast the living bejezzus out of each other.
1. Giant, bipedal robots would not be efficient at anything other than falling over. Hilariously.
The culprits: Metal Gear Solid series, Armored Core series, Front Mission series, every Mobile Suit Gundam game ever
Okay kids, let's talk. You best count your lucky stars that you can walk out of your house with falling over like a 1920s slapstick film. Humans aren't what anyone would call stable. You know how cats and dogs have four legs? And tails? Ever try pushing a dog over? It's pretty hard, because dogs are extremely balanced. Give your neighbor a push (note, I am not condoning that), and there's a good chance they'll land on the ground (maybe in a pile of dog poop if you're a comedy master). Humans are tall and top-heavy, and even other animals similar to us like chimpanzees and gorillas use their front arms to walk for stability.
Now, taking what we've just learned about humans and their nearly miraculous ability to not fall over in a stiff wind, let's apply that to a several ton bipedal robot made out of heavy metals and standing several stories high. Unless your plan is to have them fall en masse onto your enemies (which may be against the Hague convention but would make a damn good highlight reel), it would not be particularly practical. Even AT-ATs, which have the benefit of a pair of pair of legs can't stay up after a few passes of a Rebel tow cable.
2. Invading America would only end in tears. For everyone who isn't an American citizen.
The culprits: World in Conflict, Modern Warfare 2&3, Homefront
To the best of my knowledge, the United States of America has been invaded four times since the end of its revolution, the last being in the Second World War II when the Japanese invaded Alaska to try and cripple the American naval power in the Pacific. After that, when the whole 'Cold War' thing happened and America became the go-to superpower in the world, with an ever-present threat of those damn Commies sailing across the Atlantic on their boats made of Marx's manifesto.
But, when it comes to war, the United States is not a place that screws around even for a second. Seeing as the country accounts for almost half the military spending of the world (as in, the US spends half and then everyone else on the planet spends the rest). The United States is in the god-tier of military tournament characters, with one of the largest, best-trained, and most well-equipped military forces on the planet. Now, you astute observers of history will say "But D Marx, the American military lost a war against a bunch of crazy dudes in jungle, and couldn't win a war against two very poorly equipped Middle Eastern nations, getting into a quagmire in both situations against foes that really should've been finished in months if not weeks."
Which kind of then proves my point. Americans, by and large, love America. And most would not take even a little bit kindly to someone speaking a different language driving a bunch of tanks all over their front lawns. Considering how everyone in the history of mankind thinks that Americans are gun-crazy, it's likely that every major city in the US would, according to some guy I read on the internet, "a mini-Stalingrad." Not to mention the fact that not only would the United States armed forces (again, one of the most powerful armies in the history of the world) would be worrying about defending truth, justice, and the American way, but they'd also be jetting around the globe and beating the living daylights out of whoever's invading America. Bad.
3. Not everyone knows how to fly a helicopter, plane, or drive a tank.
The culprits: Almost every war game ever made, with few exceptions
As any person who's actually done any of these activities before can tell you, one does not simply walk into a tank and drive it towards a group of unfortunate enemy soldiers (cue outdated Boromir meme). Tanks are pretty complicated pieces of machinery, in case you hadn't noticed. It's not like driving a car or riding a bike (although I'm told once you learn how, you never forget). Tanks weigh a lot, are hard to move, oh, and don't forget, don't have wheels. Not to mention the fact that a modern tank has a crew of about four: one to drive the thing, two to work the main gun and other armaments, and one to coordinate everyone else. And this is all pretty specialized training that soldiers devote their entire careers to doing, along with all the maintenance and repair that goes into keeping a modern army rolling.
Same goes to aircraft, only much more so. Flying a helicopter or a plane, takes a lot of know-how, just like driving a tank, and very few people in their right minds would fly solo. There's a lot of information for a single person to process, which is why just about every modern aircraft is a tandem deal--a pilot to actually fly the plane, and a copliot (or whatever they're called, I certainly can't be bothered to look it up) to do just about everything else, including tracking targets, shooting at targets, and making sure that the pilot doesn't get them both killed to death.
4. Oh, and how about that sniping is a solo task, too?
The culprits: Pretty much any game that features a sniper rifle
Okay, I'll be the first to admit: sniper rifles are pretty cool. Rugged, accurate, deadly, what's not to love, right? The image of a lone sniper, watching over a ridge for enemy movements, picking off unfortunate stragglers of an enemy force is pretty ingrained in the social consciousness of war. And, in case you haven't figured this out by reading this article, it's pretty darn wrong. Almost every good sniper post-World War II operates in a two-soldier cell called a sniper team. Sniping is a pretty exact science--the targets a sniper needs to hit happen to be at a considerable distance, in which any number of things (wind, weather, distance, target movement, cover) can throw off a potential killshot. So, while a sniper is hard at work actually aiming at their target, his partner--called a spotter-- is worrying about just everything else, including making sure that the team isn't snuck up on and murdered to death. Oh, and a spotter does other cool stuff like call down artillery or perform surveillance on the enemy and report it back to HQ, and is also a damn fine marksmen himself, since spotters and snipers switch duties.
That's it for now guys. Thanks for your support as always, and keep up the good work...whatever it is.
--D Marx
Monday, April 30, 2012
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
I Shot a Man in New Reno, Just to Watch Him Die
Video games are pretty darn violent. With the exception of the cutest, cuddliest 'rated E10 and under' releases, most video games involve some sort of protagonist running around with an oversized weapon of choice (sword, gun, lollipop, cabinet, paintbrush, what have you) sending baddies to the hot place with some well-timed use of attacks and Special Hyper Combos. Concerned parents often get up in arms about the games where the sole focus is the destruction of thine enemies (although I've noticed a decrease in this kind of uproar within the past few years), saying that it shows too much crude and gory violence. Games like Grand Theft Auto and Mortal Kombat (especially the most recent release) have an almost pornographic violence to them, and to be honest I don't see the appeal of teaming up with a shadow copy of yourself and pulling a man in half by his legs (definitely NSFW, definitely bloody. Just FYI).
I think that kind of ultraviolence is a minority of the video game population. Like I said, video games are violent, but in most cases, the violence does have a justification to them. Take Commander Shepard in Mass Effect. Shepard is a murder machine, wasting geth, krogan, reaper, ice cream stand, and intergalactic government official with little remorse. But it's war. And while a lot of people would argue that war isn't a good thing, it was good enough to save the world from a crazy man bent on world domination 70 years ago. No one had a problem with that kind of violence, because guess what? It was necessary. When Shepard kills a wing of vorcha mercenaries keeping him from curing a plague in a poor community, those jerks totally got what was coming to them. If a bunch of bad people are doing bad things to innocent people and can't be reasoned with, most people would advocate getting out your level 72 +9 holy smiting claymore and going to town on them to protect those in need. Weapons and violence are a tool, just like anything else, and when used in a righteous manner, I don't think it's any cause for concern.
And not even every release makes violence a necessary part of the game. From the very beginning of its franchise, the Metal Gear Solid games stress that unnecessary bloodshed is bad, and the highest ratings you can get in those games can only be gotten through not killing a single man. The same goes for the latest Deus Ex game (and maybe the other ones too I don't know), and in all of the Fallout games, almost every major enemy or challenge can be overcome through words or stealth. These kinds of things teach kids that there are other answers to violence and that with a bit of cunning, challenges can be overcome without it. But again, in most cases, no one would begrudge Solid Snake or Adam Jensen for using deadly force against a bunch of terrorists/rogue government agents/crazy Illuminati.
That's it for now. Lucky episode 7 is up. Check out our youtube page and I'll see you kids later.
--D Marx
I think that kind of ultraviolence is a minority of the video game population. Like I said, video games are violent, but in most cases, the violence does have a justification to them. Take Commander Shepard in Mass Effect. Shepard is a murder machine, wasting geth, krogan, reaper, ice cream stand, and intergalactic government official with little remorse. But it's war. And while a lot of people would argue that war isn't a good thing, it was good enough to save the world from a crazy man bent on world domination 70 years ago. No one had a problem with that kind of violence, because guess what? It was necessary. When Shepard kills a wing of vorcha mercenaries keeping him from curing a plague in a poor community, those jerks totally got what was coming to them. If a bunch of bad people are doing bad things to innocent people and can't be reasoned with, most people would advocate getting out your level 72 +9 holy smiting claymore and going to town on them to protect those in need. Weapons and violence are a tool, just like anything else, and when used in a righteous manner, I don't think it's any cause for concern.
And not even every release makes violence a necessary part of the game. From the very beginning of its franchise, the Metal Gear Solid games stress that unnecessary bloodshed is bad, and the highest ratings you can get in those games can only be gotten through not killing a single man. The same goes for the latest Deus Ex game (and maybe the other ones too I don't know), and in all of the Fallout games, almost every major enemy or challenge can be overcome through words or stealth. These kinds of things teach kids that there are other answers to violence and that with a bit of cunning, challenges can be overcome without it. But again, in most cases, no one would begrudge Solid Snake or Adam Jensen for using deadly force against a bunch of terrorists/rogue government agents/crazy Illuminati.
That's it for now. Lucky episode 7 is up. Check out our youtube page and I'll see you kids later.
--D Marx
Monday, April 23, 2012
Who Do You Think You Are? The Style of PCs
Let's compare Commander Shepard of Mass Effect fame with the Courier from Fallout: New Vegas, shall we?
Take my Shepard, Wren. Wren Shepard grew up on a space station, never setting foot on a planet until she was in her teens. Her parents were proud members of the Human Systems Alliance Navy, and when Wren came-of-age, she followed in her parents' footsteps and joined the Alliance Marines. When Batarian slavers attacked the human colony of Elysium, Wren single-handed protected the colonists from the invaders, earning the Star of Terra and being selected into the prestigious N7 program. During this time, she rose through the ranks, eventually becoming the Executive Officer of one of the most advanced ships ever built, the Normandy, under the command of Captain David Anderson. And that was before the game even started.
Now, let's look at one of my Couriers, Adam. Adam is a courier. He ran afoul of Benny and his Great Khan cronies outside of Goodsprings whilst carrying the Platinum chip. Annnnnd that's it.
These are two pretty different kinds of PCs. One is a fleshed out character in a long story: creating Shepard in Mass Effect involves deciding who Shepard is, and where he/she has come from. Deciding the story of Shepard comes even before deciding what Shepard looks like. In ME1, the first scene of game comes with the knowledge of the kind of person that Shepard is. It's fairly important to the story; Shepard's past changes and informs how the NPCs of the galaxy interact with him/her, and even comes back to haunt him/her at certain points of Shepard's story.
The Courier is, of course, almost the exact opposite, a blank slate. While snippets of who the Courier is comes out occasionally in conversation with other NPCs, really, it almost doesn't matter the roads that the Courier has walked. The world continues turning even without knowing every detail of the Courier's life.
So who's the stronger PC? The obvious choice is Shepard; after all, Shepard is a fleshed out PC with a lot of hooks, a fair amount of depth, and that's reflected in the world around it. But really this isn't a fair comparison. What the Courier lacks in backstory he/she more than makes up for by just being a set-piece in a bigger story around them. Shepard is the king of the Mass Effect chessboard: the most important thing on the board that, by the end of the third game, becomes the single focal point of all the galaxy's attention. The Courier, by contrast, is really a pawn in the big scheme of things, especially to those he/she chooses to work for throughout the course of the game. The Courier slogs along, one square at a time, until the Battle of Hoover Dam where it meets the other end of the board and becomes the queen, the most powerful piece on the board. This is the second biggest difference between the Courier and Shepard: Shepard is a child of circumstance, a (wo)man who happens to receive a message from a long-dead civilization fortelling the death of the galaxy, setting him/her on a course of the its salvation from the Reapers. The Courier is a child of nurture, someone who makes decisions based on what's best for him/her as opposed to what needs to be done. While both PCs are ultimately the arbiters of their own fate, making the decisions that shake the world around them, the motivations for the characters are radically different.
I like Shepard. I like being able to choose who (s)he is and what happens to him/her. But I like the Courier too. I like being able to put myself in the Courier's shoes, pretending that I'm lynchpin of the war of attrition between the New California Republic and Caesar's Legion. And it's that ability to be in New Vegas that makes the Courier every bit as memorable as Shepard. In my opinion.
--D Marx
Take my Shepard, Wren. Wren Shepard grew up on a space station, never setting foot on a planet until she was in her teens. Her parents were proud members of the Human Systems Alliance Navy, and when Wren came-of-age, she followed in her parents' footsteps and joined the Alliance Marines. When Batarian slavers attacked the human colony of Elysium, Wren single-handed protected the colonists from the invaders, earning the Star of Terra and being selected into the prestigious N7 program. During this time, she rose through the ranks, eventually becoming the Executive Officer of one of the most advanced ships ever built, the Normandy, under the command of Captain David Anderson. And that was before the game even started.
Now, let's look at one of my Couriers, Adam. Adam is a courier. He ran afoul of Benny and his Great Khan cronies outside of Goodsprings whilst carrying the Platinum chip. Annnnnd that's it.
These are two pretty different kinds of PCs. One is a fleshed out character in a long story: creating Shepard in Mass Effect involves deciding who Shepard is, and where he/she has come from. Deciding the story of Shepard comes even before deciding what Shepard looks like. In ME1, the first scene of game comes with the knowledge of the kind of person that Shepard is. It's fairly important to the story; Shepard's past changes and informs how the NPCs of the galaxy interact with him/her, and even comes back to haunt him/her at certain points of Shepard's story.
The Courier is, of course, almost the exact opposite, a blank slate. While snippets of who the Courier is comes out occasionally in conversation with other NPCs, really, it almost doesn't matter the roads that the Courier has walked. The world continues turning even without knowing every detail of the Courier's life.
So who's the stronger PC? The obvious choice is Shepard; after all, Shepard is a fleshed out PC with a lot of hooks, a fair amount of depth, and that's reflected in the world around it. But really this isn't a fair comparison. What the Courier lacks in backstory he/she more than makes up for by just being a set-piece in a bigger story around them. Shepard is the king of the Mass Effect chessboard: the most important thing on the board that, by the end of the third game, becomes the single focal point of all the galaxy's attention. The Courier, by contrast, is really a pawn in the big scheme of things, especially to those he/she chooses to work for throughout the course of the game. The Courier slogs along, one square at a time, until the Battle of Hoover Dam where it meets the other end of the board and becomes the queen, the most powerful piece on the board. This is the second biggest difference between the Courier and Shepard: Shepard is a child of circumstance, a (wo)man who happens to receive a message from a long-dead civilization fortelling the death of the galaxy, setting him/her on a course of the its salvation from the Reapers. The Courier is a child of nurture, someone who makes decisions based on what's best for him/her as opposed to what needs to be done. While both PCs are ultimately the arbiters of their own fate, making the decisions that shake the world around them, the motivations for the characters are radically different.
I like Shepard. I like being able to choose who (s)he is and what happens to him/her. But I like the Courier too. I like being able to put myself in the Courier's shoes, pretending that I'm lynchpin of the war of attrition between the New California Republic and Caesar's Legion. And it's that ability to be in New Vegas that makes the Courier every bit as memorable as Shepard. In my opinion.
--D Marx
Thursday, April 19, 2012
Harder. Better. Faster. Stronger.
Hello loyal Sons supporters! Apologies for the lack of updates as of late, but your Sons have been busy working on our brand-spanking new Youtube account! That's right; now you can watch your favorite Sons do quick reviews, play-throughs (or 'Let's Plays' to those in the biz), and whatever else we feel like throwing on. Go there, watch the videos, and ENJOY them!
Also, this week's podcast is up, detail the Sons' views on how homosexuality is portrayed in video games; who does it right, who does it wrong, and who doesn't do it at all. Also they talk the new fighting game sensation, Skullgirls, which can be downloaded on the PSN and Xbox Arcade. And, of course, the legendary SONS OF VIDYA SPEED REVIEWS!
Thanks as always for the support and don't be afraid to email us with anything that's on your mind!
--D Marx
Also, this week's podcast is up, detail the Sons' views on how homosexuality is portrayed in video games; who does it right, who does it wrong, and who doesn't do it at all. Also they talk the new fighting game sensation, Skullgirls, which can be downloaded on the PSN and Xbox Arcade. And, of course, the legendary SONS OF VIDYA SPEED REVIEWS!
Thanks as always for the support and don't be afraid to email us with anything that's on your mind!
--D Marx
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)