Keepin' it real - or not

A while ago, I wrote piece about realism in games. It became clear to me that the more developers try to make things real - be they graphics, story, environment, or physics - the more noticeable the faults are. When applied to graphics alone this is referred to as "the uncanny valley", but I felt that the term could be expanded to include other aspects of game design as well.

This subject has been a topic of discussion recently, in numerous places such as sites and podcasts, although with a much more serious tone. It turns out that some people are actually offended by developers' half-assed attempts at realism. Don't get me wrong - no one is going to be disturbed by Gears of War's weird physics or Grand Theft Auto's sometimes-questionable dialog; but when a game deals with a sensitive subject, such as war, people tend to take things a little more personally.

There have been two good examples of this in recent months, the first concerning Resident Evil 5. Ever since the debut trailer, people have accused the game of being racist. The simplest way of looking at this is that it's the story of a white man going to Africa to kill black people. This is a gross over-simplification of the plot but that doesn't make it any less true, and this fact alone is enough to offend certain folks. However, Capcom have tried to quell any notions that Resident Evil 5 is trying to be realistic; after all, it does take place in a fictional town.

Lets look at it in a slightly more advanced way now. Resident Evil 5 is the story of a man who travels to Africa, kills the native "savages", and steals a bunch of jewels and artifacts. To be fair, the natives are infected with a virus that makes them violent, and the idea of looting is a staple in the majority of games, but unfortunately, because of the realistic setting, these aspects have combined into a scenario very similar to tales of Western colonization. This isn't necessarily a bad thing; after all, serious subjects such as this have been the topic of numerous films over the years, whether it be genocide in Hotel Rwanda, or The Holocaust in Schindler's List.

The difference, though, is that those movies pulled no punches when portraying disturbing subjects; making sure the audience were fully aware of the horrors of human history. Resident Evil 5, on the other hand, makes no effort to show the repercussions of colonization or the misery it can inflict on native residents. Capcom may not have been trying to comment on this subject but they inadvertently have, partially because of their decision to travel to real African villages when researching the game. Maybe if it had been set in a completely fictional location with no similarities to the real world, people wouldn't have cared so much.

So what this comes down to is, Capcom took a realistic setting and historical scenario, but simply used these as the backdrop for a fun video game. They made no effort to say anything relevant about the context and allowed the main character, our "colonist", to walk away the hero. This is why some people found the game to be offensive (the African stereotypes, such as natives in grass skirts, didn't help either). Maybe folks are reading into it a little too much, but Capcom should have been aware of how their product could be interpreted.

So what happens when a developer tries to comment on a sensitive subject? About a month ago, Konami announced a game called Six Days in Fallujah, a re-creation of the real-life battle for Baghdad city that took place in 2004. Konami talked with dozens of marines while researching the game and tried to follow an accurate timeline, showing players what day-to-day life would be like for a soldier fighting in Iraq. So far, this doesn't sound too bad. Sure, it's a sensitive subject, but if handled carefully could become the basis for a video game like no other; one that really made you think about the topic of war.

But there's a problem: Real war isn't fun. In real life, bullets kill. There are no med-packs or plasma shields; the best you can hope for after getting shot is an extended trip to the medical bay. That is, if you even see any action. Many marines come back without so much as a single kill, which wouldn't be that fun in a first person shooter. Rather than look at these aspects, though, and figure out how to work them into the game, Konami took the easy route and employed tried and tested FPS mechanics such as Halo-style regenerating health. This rubbed some people the wrong way, as they felt that it was disrespectful to the soldiers who gave their lives in the conflict.

When asked about these decisions, Konami's VP of marketing, Anthony Crouts, said the following: "We're not trying to make social commentary. We're not pro-war. We're not trying to make people uncomfortable. We just want to bring a compelling entertainment experience. At the end of the day, it's just a game." Yeah, Anthony, a game based on a conflict that's still going on; one that people are losing their lives in everyday. The game's mere existence is social commentary, whether you like it or not. That's why you have to show the proper respect to those involved, not use it as just another way to make money.

The best way to sum up people's feelings about Six Days in Fallujah is with a quote from a recent episode of Listen Up. When discussing the subject, a US marine wrote to them saying, "If I were to shoot twenty enemy combatants in my career as a Marine, I'd be given every medal under the sun. In Six Days in Fallujah that was apparently the first ten minutes of the game. These people need a serious reality check. Having seen the early impressions of the game, it's insulting to think that these people thought this paid proper homage to the marines, because if this is what you think is proper respect then you've been betrayed and have an utter and complete lack of genuine understanding."

With this kind of backlash, it came as little surprise that, weeks after it's announcement, Konami abandoned Six Days in Fallujah. It could be argued that a game based on the current war in Iraq would be canceled no matter what, but I personally think that if they had handled things a little differently, production could still be going on. Yeah, there would be controversy, but at least Konami could show that they were trying to honor those involved by making things as realistic as possible, not exploiting the situation for their own profits.

Part of the problem here is that most developers don't like controversy. They want to make a game that appeals to as many people as possible and sells millions of units. But even if they did want to make a hyper-realistic war game, would it still be fun? Unlike movies, video games need to have at least some elements of fun or no-one will want to play them. Or will they? There are plenty of movies out there that aren't exactly pleasant to watch but are engaging because they make you think about the subject matter. Games, as an interactive medium, could be used to show history in even more intense ways; letting the player actually take part in the events, rather than just be a spectator.

Imagine, if you will, a game that takes place during The Holocaust, in a concentration camp. You play a Nazi officer whose job it is to execute prisoners. Would it be fun putting a bullet through the brain of an innocent Jewish woman while her children watched, screaming? No, it would be horrific, but there's no way anyone could play it without seriously thinking about the events it portrayed. I know what you're thinking: If you played such a game you'd turn the gun on your fellow Nazis instead, right? Well, maybe that would be an option, but one that would lead to your immediate execution. In order to advance the story you would have to follow your orders, just as Nazi officers would have to during the war. It's not pleasant but it's real.

I think it's going to be a long time before we start seeing games that tackle such sensitive issues in respectful ways. This will only happen, though, if developers fight to evolve the medium. As long as most people see gaming as nothing more than an entertaining pastime, we have no hope of seeing anything else come from it. These half-assed attempts at realism only upset people; people who know how events really happened. Maybe developers will listen to the feedback from Resident Evil 5 and Six Days in Fallujah and think about what needs to be done better the next time around, but I have a bad feeling that the only lesson they learned is, "Don't ever try to incorporate any aspects of realism - you'll just piss people off!". I sure hope I'm wrong.