China creates video game simulating combat against US troops

[Praktik]

Still. Americans got scared. Americans took a loss to fix it cause they were scared of the wrath of the Chinese!

 

[Trakar]

Still. Americans got scared. Americans took a loss to fix it cause they were scared of the wrath of the Chinese!

big difference between fear, and chasing bigger profits.

 

[Praktik]

I will not argue my fecetious point any further except to say, whatever you Americans need to look yourselves in the mirror in the morning I suppose...

 

[Trakar]

I will not argue my fecetious point any further except to say, whatever you Americans need to look yourselves in the mirror in the morning I suppose...

LOL, actually most of us have a hard time with mirrors, merely because looking into them is so seductive, it is disappointing and disheartening to break away and look out at what the rest of the world has to offer.

 

[Praktik]

Nice parry!

 

[McHrozni]

And as stated before, this is certainly less provocative than standing attack and combat plans for a wide range of US Military engagements with China that the Pentagon regularly updates including everything from First-strike nuclear attacks to cyber warfare economic attacks.

Which is completely unrelated to the issue, not to mention plain stupid to mention at all. Every military is reasonably expected to maintain an updated plan to fight it's adversaries, if the Chinese aren't doing the same (which you conveniently left out) they are just dumb.

Tell me, what would be the harm if the game used a fictional enemy, like it's US predecesor does?

McHrozni

 

[Trakar]

Which is completely unrelated to the issue, not to mention plain stupid to mention at all. Every military is reasonably expected to maintain an updated plan to fight it's adversaries, if the Chinese aren't doing the same (which you conveniently left out) they are just dumb.

Tell me, what would be the harm if the game used a fictional enemy, like it's US predecesor does?

McHrozni

How are you defining "adversaries."

You do realize that we have attack and combat plans for every significant nation on the planet (and many that aren't significant) "friend" or "foe," updated every few years, don't you? Far more aggressively blatant hostile act than any combat video game simulation, regardless of what specific name the game places on the opponent,...btw has it been confidently confirmed that the oppnent is the "US military"or is it merely implied? are the battlefields in the US or China?(IOW, are they defending against a feared US aggressor invasion, or conquering US territories to extend their empire and influence?)

 

[McHrozni]

How are you defining "adversaries."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/adversary

You do realize that we have attack and combat plans for every significant nation on the planet (and many that aren't significant) "friend" or "foe," updated every few years, don't you?

So?

Far more aggressively blatant hostile act than any combat video game simulation, regardless of what specific name the game places on the opponent,...btw has it been confidently confirmed that the oppnent is the "US military"or is it merely implied? are the battlefields in the US or China?(IOW, are they defending against a feared US aggressor invasion, or conquering US territories to extend their empire and influence?)

You haven't answered my question. What would be the harm if the Chinese used a fictional enemy?

McHrozni

 

[nvidiot]

You haven't answered my question. What would be the harm if the Chinese used a fictional enemy?

McHrozni

Loss of immersion for players. Fighting against Derkaderkistani's is nowhere near as "real" for the player.

And I am fairly sure that ARMA is funded by the US government.

Wow, people like to play games against realistic enemy forces in first person shooters. They've only been doing that since what, Wolfenstein3D?

 

[McHrozni]

Loss of immersion for players. Fighting against Derkaderkistani's is nowhere near as "real" for the player.

And fighting US forces is? How many Chinese fps players have fought the US forces?

Wow, people like to play games against realistic enemy forces in first person shooters. They've only been doing that since what, Wolfenstein3D?

Concepts of "First person shooter" and "realism" shouldn't be used in the same sentence in most cases. That said, unless you just compared USA with Nazi Germany I really don't see what you're trying to say.

McHrozni

 

[nvidiot]

*sigh*

For the Chinese, yes, fighting the US military in a FPS game is more immersive than fighting Derkaderkistani's. Is that difficult to understand? Fighting the Taliban would be more immersive for a player in the western world than fighting the Derkaderkistani's. It's not a complex psychological concept to think that it is more immersive to fight a real world enemy than a completely fictional representation of "the enemy".

 

[McHrozni]

*sigh*

For the Chinese, yes, fighting the US military in a FPS game is more immersive than fighting Derkaderkistani's. Is that difficult to understand? Fighting the Taliban would be more immersive for a player in the western world than fighting the Derkaderkistani's. It's not a complex psychological concept to think that it is more immersive to fight a real world enemy than a completely fictional representation of "the enemy".

Would the quality of immersion suffer if the fictional enemy was the Japanese Empire?

McHrozni

 

[nvidiot]

There is no Japanese empire. There was though, and we fought against them in WW2.

And many many many games, FPS and RTS and every other category really, have been made by many different companies which allow you to kill those military forces. It's a decision based on gamer experience and immersion which makes people more inclined to feel like they're in the game.

If this game had the Chinese fighting the Japanese SDF, would you be defending the hurt feelings of the Japanese? Or say if a game was set in the 40s, with a sole US soldier being deposited into a German castle being used for German military purposes, with the American soldier killing literally thousands of Germans, would you defend their hurt feelings? No?

 

[McHrozni]

There is no Japanese empire. There was though, and we fought against them in WW2.

I know, but you brought up Wolfenstein3D, which had a comparable enemy. If you're going to create a fictional storyline in which the Chinese fight whomever, you might as well use an enemy that used to exist but doesn't any more, use a different history and you're there. Would immersion suffer to a meningful degree? At all?

And many many many games, FPS and RTS and every other category really, have been made by many different companies which allow you to kill those military forces. It's a decision based on gamer experience and immersion which makes people more inclined to feel like they're in the game.

I bolded the cruical word. If it were a private venture, I wouldn't mind it either. The whole reason we're having this discussion is because the Chinese state paid for it's development. How many times do I have to repeat this?

If this game had the Chinese fighting the Japanese SDF, would you be defending the hurt feelings of the Japanese? Or say if a game was set in the 40s, with a sole US soldier being deposited into a German castle being used for German military purposes, with the American soldier killing literally thousands of Germans, would you defend their hurt feelings? No?

There was no Germany as we know it today in 1940. Just as there was no modern Japan, just as there is no Japanese empire or Nazi Germany today. Funnily enough, you understood this two paragraphs back.

McHrozni

 

[nvidiot]

You are missing the point of my comparisons rather widely.

I pointed out that companies and governments sponsor games. These games are more immersive for the player with an enemy they know exists in the real world. Whether they are Japanese, Imperial Japanese, German, Nazi German, American, or Cold War American, makes little difference. You are upset because you are the (virtual) enemy. Why shouldn't they be upset if they are the (virtual) enemy? And if they are upset, is it justified? And if they aren't upset, why shouldn't they be?

It's a game McHronzi. People like the suspension of disbelief that comes with that. It is no different from movies which portray enemies in Afghanistan, or Russia, or Iraq, or wherever. It is no different from the many books that use real contemporary countries as enemies.

It's called fiction. Just because the US is the "bad guy" doesn't mean anything other than the fact that the US is the only superpower likely to attack them in the foreseeable future, and they are a convenient ideological and military adversary who are easily accepted as a plausible enemy.

 

[McHrozni]

You are missing the point of my comparisons rather widely.

I pointed out that companies and governments sponsor games. These games are more immersive for the player with an enemy they know exists in the real world. Whether they are Japanese, Imperial Japanese, German, Nazi German, American, or Cold War American, makes little difference. You are upset because you are the (virtual) enemy. Why shouldn't they be upset if they are the (virtual) enemy? And if they are upset, is it justified? And if they aren't upset, why shouldn't they be?

As you pointed out, some of these sides no longer exist. Those are inherently not controvertial and it's pointless to bring them up.

Again, the differance is that the state sponsored a game. The differance between state and a private company in this case is that a private company is doing it for profit. The state is not. The only plausible reason for the state to sponsor a game like that is to recruit for it's armed forces, as is the case with Americas' army.

Do you see any problems with the army recruiting slogan "join the army, be a hero, kill evil Americans"? Because this is what this game amounts to. If you're fighting a fictional enemy, you can at least drop the last part.

If you agree with the slogan however, we'll have to agree to disagree. You can't debate opinions.

It's a game McHronzi. People like the suspension of disbelief that comes with that. It is no different from movies which portray enemies in Afghanistan, or Russia, or Iraq, or wherever. It is no different from the many books that use real contemporary countries as enemies.

It's called fiction. Just because the US is the "bad guy" doesn't mean anything other than the fact that the US is the only superpower likely to attack them in the foreseeable future, and they are a convenient ideological and military adversary who are easily accepted as a plausible enemy.

It's McHrozni, not McHronzi. Common error

McHrozni
(and not McHronzi)

 

[Nerd]

...
And I am fairly sure that ARMA is funded by the US government.
...

ArmA: Armed Assault (known as ArmA: Combat Operations in North America) is a tactical military first- and third-person shooter which was developed by a 40 member team at Bohemia Interactive (BI), an independent game developer based in the Czech Republic.

You are missing the point of my comparisons rather widely.

I pointed out that companies and governments sponsor games. These games are more immersive for the player with an enemy they know exists in the real world. Whether they are Japanese, Imperial Japanese, German, Nazi German, American, or Cold War American, makes little difference. You are upset because you are the (virtual) enemy. Why shouldn't they be upset if they are the (virtual) enemy? And if they are upset, is it justified? And if they aren't upset, why shouldn't they be?

The situation would be same if the US sponsored a game that had the Chinese as its enemy. And I don't know of any games sponsored by governments besides this one. Most of them are purely created by private developing groups.

 

[nvidiot]

Sorry not ArmA, I meant to refer to Americas Army

 

[Quad4_72]

Gheheh, well I guess there's a lot of games in the US where you can shoot up ehm VC or Germans and ehm I dunno... probably many more peoples Of course these are private companies, but this is not possible in China is it? Everything is state owned, right?

Anyway, does not surprise me very much... We have a game here you can whack moles, geheh or shoot up cows geheheheh... Ehm killkillkilletc... Also one you can shoot UP "innocent" civilians!! Ghehheeh in malls and places like that! Vewy funny Also one you can drive car and hit women with babies in babycars, huhuhuh Is legal, no joke!

Could be a sign relations are worsening, but does not have to... is just a cpu game is it not?
But who knows?

No exaggeration, but I counted 86 wink faces in your post. THAT'S TOO MANY

 

[Trakar]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/adversary

I don't consider the Chinese to be adversaries, and support engagement policies that likewise view them as trading partners and potential friends.

So?

This is much more aggressive than any gaming simulation.

You haven't answered my question. What would be the harm if the Chinese used a fictional enemy?

As far as I can tell, they did.

Now how about answering my questions:
"... has it been confidently confirmed that the oppnent is the "US military"or is it merely implied?

are the battlefields in the US or China?(IOW, are they defending against a feared US aggressor invasion, or conquering US territories to extend their empire and influence?)..."