The Harsh Reality World War II
I’ve been reading The Fall of Berlin by Antony Beevor, who also wrote the phenomenal Stalingrad: The Fateful Siege: 1942-1943. Both books deal with the incredible brutality of Weorld War II conflict in some detail.
Beevor documents pretty carefully the barbarity of the Red Army as it advances across Greater Germany - the rape and slaughter of untold numbers of civilians. A lot of the Red Army attititude to German civilians is explained by the fact that the Germans did pretty much the same things (if not worse) on the way East in ‘41. Coupled to all of this is the incredilbe hubris and callousness of the Nazis themselves, and the insanity of Hitler and his sycophantic posse by the late stages of the war. The Nazis are hopelessly disorganised and “their” people are largely left to fend for themselves.
How does this relate to games?
It got me thinking, amid the spate of World War II flavoured games, the war is treated in rather glamorous terms. The very harsh realities of what large-scale conflict really means, the futile deaths outside the broad and daring clashes of military might on the battlefield are lost.
So I was thinking, how could a game designer engage with this stuff?
Imagine having to make the decide whether to use the rail system to evacuate civilians or supply troops. Or having to deal with the civilian toll of your advance. Or even if it was just displayed on the screen. Or having to manage refugees. Or losing control of your troops and them engage in indisciminate rapine and slaughter.
It would be controversial, if nothing else.
[Image is from Wikipedia].
I’ve played a few World War II-related PC games - the Medal of Honor series, Call of Duty and Battlefield 1942. The thing that struck me about Medal of Honor was that the missions were (probably loosely) based on the actions of an actual solider but despite the fact I was sitting in the comfort of my study I “died” many times trying to recreate those achievements - this highlighted for me how war can be a bit of an odds game. Playing Omaha Beach maps online in Medal of Honor and Battlefield 1942 where, if I was playing on the Allied team, I normally ended up respawning over and over after getting killed, ended up getting quite repetitive and boring, a bit like an RPG where you have to wander around slaying hundreds of creatures that don’t fight back just to get your “level up”.
I’ve read those books by Antony Beevor as well - they were great - but I gather the slaughter was even greater on the Eastern front than on Omaha Beach where I have been slaughtered a great number of times. I’ve seen it said before on modding forums for Medal of Honor that “nobody would want to play a First-Person Shooter on the Eastern front” - I guess it might meet your definition of a hardcore came for the casual player since it would be pretty brutal but not take up too much of your time due to the low odds of surviving very long
I’d like to see someone come up with a new solution to this kind of game which doesn’t get quite so boring - perhaps I am playing the role of one member of a squad, but when he dies, I get to take over control of one of the squad members who is still alive? Or perhaps just give me a shield to deflect the bullets. However, it is probably in the game designer’s best interest to force the player to try the same map over and over - more game play time from less maps!
David O'Shea | 8:17 pm on the 14th of September, 2006