Most controversial video games?

[Gusington]

That's new for me too...never met anyone who thought the Challenger exploding was cool. My 6th grade class was shocked in to silence, a rarity.

[Phantom]

I really wish someone would grow some balls and release 6 Days in Fallujah. Why the hell is that so damned controversial anyway? Just because it was developed at a time when the war was still actively being fought? The article claims many veterans objected to its release. I call total bull$hit on that. Anyway, my understanding is the game is complete. It just needs a publisher.

I'd add Syrian Warfare to the list. Its a surprisingly good game, but it is shamelessly biased in a political way and is a great example of recreational gaming software as propaganda.

I agree - I must admit to always being surprised that people feel there must be a time lag between a war & a game about it, it always seems a little bogus to me. Surely a game is more relevant if the game is released nearer to the event. If its in bad taste, surely its just as bad taste 5/10/20 years afterwards?
Take WW2 - we had the holocaust, the Russians losing & killing millions, topping it off by raping their way across Germany, the Japanese butchering Chinese & Koreans with reckless abandon, never mind the prisoner torture, all wrapped up with two Japanese cities being incinerated - fancy a game anyone! - clearly people do as its the most gamed subject on the planet. Once its happened it history, there shouldn't be any hypocritical "reverse statute of limitation" on games.

[Emir Agic]

Zizek about people who play video games...  ;)

[Tuna]

He wasn't/isn't a dickhead. He has grown into a fine man. He just didn't realize what he was saying at 8 years old. He didn't think about what really happened that day. Don't worry, I scolded the he'll out of him that day!

[MengJiao]

I really wish someone would grow some balls and release 6 Days in Fallujah. Why the hell is that so damned controversial anyway? Just because it was developed at a time when the war was still actively being fought? The article claims many veterans objected to its release. I call total bull$hit on that. Anyway, my understanding is the game is complete. It just needs a publisher.

I'd add Syrian Warfare to the list. Its a surprisingly good game, but it is shamelessly biased in a political way and is a great example of recreational gaming software as propaganda.

I agree - I must admit to always being surprised that people feel there must be a time lag between a war & a game about it, it always seems a little bogus to me. Surely a game is more relevant if the game is released nearer to the event. If its in bad taste, surely its just as bad taste 5/10/20 years afterwards?
Take WW2 - we had the holocaust, the Russians losing & killing millions, topping it off by raping their way across Germany, the Japanese butchering Chinese & Koreans with reckless abandon, never mind the prisoner torture, all wrapped up with two Japanese cities being incinerated - fancy a game anyone! - clearly people do as its the most gamed subject on the planet. Once its happened it history, there shouldn't be any hypocritical "reverse statute of limitation" on games.

  With the need for distance (if there is such a thing)...you'd think the most distant wars would be the most popular.  It's true there's a lot of Kadesh out there and an over-abundance of Pelopoenisian Wars...but nothing at all about the Venus War Complex of 6th and 7th Century MesoAmerica.  Could it be that the human-sacrifice thing is a bit much?  Sure, But the Venus War Complex was actually far less human-sacrifice oriented than the Mexica/Aztec Empire.  So it sort of doesn't make a lot of sense.

[Phantom]

I really wish someone would grow some balls and release 6 Days in Fallujah. Why the hell is that so damned controversial anyway? Just because it was developed at a time when the war was still actively being fought? The article claims many veterans objected to its release. I call total bull$hit on that. Anyway, my understanding is the game is complete. It just needs a publisher.

I'd add Syrian Warfare to the list. Its a surprisingly good game, but it is shamelessly biased in a political way and is a great example of recreational gaming software as propaganda.

I agree - I must admit to always being surprised that people feel there must be a time lag between a war & a game about it, it always seems a little bogus to me. Surely a game is more relevant if the game is released nearer to the event. If its in bad taste, surely its just as bad taste 5/10/20 years afterwards?
Take WW2 - we had the holocaust, the Russians losing & killing millions, topping it off by raping their way across Germany, the Japanese butchering Chinese & Koreans with reckless abandon, never mind the prisoner torture, all wrapped up with two Japanese cities being incinerated - fancy a game anyone! - clearly people do as its the most gamed subject on the planet. Once its happened it history, there shouldn't be any hypocritical "reverse statute of limitation" on games.

  With the need for distance (if there is such a thing)...you'd think the most distant wars would be the most popular.  It's true there's a lot of Kadesh out there and an over-abundance of Pelopoenisian Wars...but nothing at all about the Venus War Complex of 6th and 7th Century MesoAmerica.  Could it be that the human-sacrifice thing is a bit much?  Sure, But the Venus War Complex was actually far less human-sacrifice oriented than the Mexica/Aztec Empire.  So it sort of doesn't make a lot of sense.

I guess its also down to knowledge. If you're familiar with a conflict you're probably more likely to game it as it will be of interest outside of just the game itself. thus for people in the west the most likely subjects may be Greece, Rome, Napoleon & the 20th century as this is history that most of us know about. I must admit bar the odd Shogun game I don't play anything involving much set in the far east or South America, unless it is through some colonial connection. Regardless, they're just games to me.

[jamus34]

To look at it another way. Should games (specifically historical) completely ignore controversial subjects.

I.e. The slave trade, the Holocaust, the Vietnam/Cambodian war, the Iran / Iraq war, etc

[bayonetbrant]

To look at it another way. Should games (specifically historical) completely ignore controversial subjects.

I.e. The slave trade, the Holocaust, the Vietnam/Cambodian war, the Iran / Iraq war, etc

https://www.wired.com/2013/12/brenda-romero/

[BanzaiCat]

https://www.wired.com/2013/12/brenda-romero/

Excellent read.

[SirAndrewD]

Pac-Man triggers me pretty hard.  Ghost lives matter.

[MengJiao]

I really wish someone would grow some balls and release 6 Days in Fallujah. Why the hell is that so damned controversial anyway? Just because it was developed at a time when the war was still actively being fought? The article claims many veterans objected to its release. I call total bull$hit on that. Anyway, my understanding is the game is complete. It just needs a publisher.

I'd add Syrian Warfare to the list. Its a surprisingly good game, but it is shamelessly biased in a political way and is a great example of recreational gaming software as propaganda.

I agree - I must admit to always being surprised that people feel there must be a time lag between a war & a game about it, it always seems a little bogus to me. Surely a game is more relevant if the game is released nearer to the event. If its in bad taste, surely its just as bad taste 5/10/20 years afterwards?
Take WW2 - we had the holocaust, the Russians losing & killing millions, topping it off by raping their way across Germany, the Japanese butchering Chinese & Koreans with reckless abandon, never mind the prisoner torture, all wrapped up with two Japanese cities being incinerated - fancy a game anyone! - clearly people do as its the most gamed subject on the planet. Once its happened it history, there shouldn't be any hypocritical "reverse statute of limitation" on games.

  With the need for distance (if there is such a thing)...you'd think the most distant wars would be the most popular.  It's true there's a lot of Kadesh out there and an over-abundance of Pelopoenisian Wars...but nothing at all about the Venus War Complex of 6th and 7th Century MesoAmerica.  Could it be that the human-sacrifice thing is a bit much?  Sure, But the Venus War Complex was actually far less human-sacrifice oriented than the Mexica/Aztec Empire.  So it sort of doesn't make a lot of sense.

I guess its also down to knowledge. If you're familiar with a conflict you're probably more likely to game it as it will be of interest outside of just the game itself. thus for people in the west the most likely subjects may be Greece, Rome, Napoleon & the 20th century as this is history that most of us know about. I must admit bar the odd Shogun game I don't play anything involving much set in the far east or South America, unless it is through some colonial connection. Regardless, they're just games to me.

  I agree that "controversy" has a lot less impact on what games get built and how than some kind of cultural imagery...I myself prefer things to be kind of twisted but not just a mess of outright slaughter.  There was that awful mordor game where you (the player) was some kind of undead thing and you killed an amazing number of Orcs and Uruk-hai.  Though there was some kind of structure the whole thing amounted to killing a lot of Orcs and Uruk-hai.  Eventually I found that pretty unpleasant.  Not really sure why.  On a different note...I'm happy with almost any reasonable simulation of Normandy in 1944.  There I think it is the dynamic of the fighting -- vicious, murderous -- but intriguing -- as much because of the variety of attempts to simulate or game it as because of the battles themselves, I think.  So once there's a few interesting games on a topic (others would be the Desert War in North Africa) then the chance of more games -- usually offereing a slightly different interpretation -- become more likely.  So in my view, heavily gamed topics seem to be the more interesting topics just because they are so heavily gamed.  There are exceptions -- Hoplite for example seems entertaining in its mysterious isolation as much because of that as because of any intrinsic interest the topic has.  Flying Colors -- another favorite -- is kind of intermeiate -- the Age of Sail is moderately well gamed but good games on the topic are mysteriously isolated even so.

[bayonetbrant]

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1555412017720359

Military shooters have explored both historical and modern settings and remain one of the most popular game genres. While the violence of these games has been explored in multiple studies, the study of how war and the rules of war are represented is underexplored. The Red Cross has argued that as virtual war games are becoming closer to reality, the rules of war should be included. This article explores the argument put forward by the Red Cross and its reception by games media organizations, in order to consider how the concept of "just war" is represented within games. This article will focus on concerns over games adherence to the criteria of jus in bello (the right conduct in war) and will also consider the challenges that developers face in the creation of entertainment products in the face of publisher and press concerns.

[gameleaper]

has anybody mentioned carmageddon  >:D they made it change to green blood

[gameleaper]

grand theift auto, if I remember had a lot of bad feeling

[Jarhead0331]

^those are both games mentioned in the article from the OP.