I have always had a love/hate relationship with war games, especially World War 2 video games. On one hand they provide hours of entertainment and fun. On the other hand they are strange in a military and historical sense. Since this is a rant I only want to talk about why I hate them.
Since I am in a good mood today I will start with why I hate them. The number one thing I hate is the way that you are basically a one man army even though there are 50 MILLION other soldiers with you, you have to do everything, but you cant preform basic tasks such as opening a door (like in some games someone has to do it for you) or TALKING! The next thing I hate is how you move so fast (not literally but in a larger military sense). Yeah, last I checked it took the US Army 10 minutes to get off Omaha Beach. You also carry way too many weapons. Last I checked no soldier can easily sprint with a .30 cal, MG42 and a bazooka all on their backs. The soldier you play as also has such military expertise he has to have every job available in the military. For instance in Call of Duty 2 where you get in a tank and you operate it like a expert, even without any prior training (I have operated a tank before it is no easy task). I have always wanted to see a war game were you didn't complete dominate the opposing side, can carry only one weapon, and have to use real military tactics to win.
Thursday, May 24, 2012
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Sorry Public
I would like to say sorry for not posting in a long time. I have had a busy time in my life and couldn't quite finish a post (i have started multiple ones). I am going to have a ton of free time coming up and will be posting more frequently.
Hope you check back soon!
Hope you check back soon!
"Who Cares?"
I love World War 2 movies as much as the next guy, but something that has always ruined a good World War 2 movie for me has been historical accuracy. I bring this up because the other day I was talking with my non-history studying friends about the movie Pearl Harbor, I liked it (especially Kate Beckingsale) but some of the scenes in it were terrible from a historical perspective. For example late war painted Zero's or a U.S Army Air Corps pilot volunteering to serve in Britain (this was against the rules of neutrality). After I stated these facts and others my friends looked at me and said "Who Cares".
I can see how in movies the filming would start, thousands of dollars in pyrotechnics are going off and you see that, lets say someone has the wrong canteen cover but you can't stop the scene to change out the canteen so you keep rolling, or you are making a movie in the 1960's and you have no special effects (which gives no excuse for movies today). These make sense but in, like say The Pacific (which is a great miniseries) the landing craft would never embark from the LST's so close to the beach and head directly in, they would circle around out of the artillery range, form up and head in. This isn't as dramatic as going straight in. That is the reason I put for all historical inaccuracy in movies "This way adds more drama".
I did like my English teachers always told me to do, add a concession it makes you look educated, if I am anything its that I am educated! So now to answer my friends' question, with "I do". I think it is morally wrong to spare historical accuracy for drama, and for the sake of getting more money. In the case of The Pacific I think it would of been more dramatic to see the tension build as the landing craft circled around waiting to head in. Another counter I have heard to this exact statement is "that would be boring", I think circling around would build up the tension as you are anticipating the landing. I also think that in sacrificing historical accuracy you also do a great disservice to veterans and their memories.
I can see how in movies the filming would start, thousands of dollars in pyrotechnics are going off and you see that, lets say someone has the wrong canteen cover but you can't stop the scene to change out the canteen so you keep rolling, or you are making a movie in the 1960's and you have no special effects (which gives no excuse for movies today). These make sense but in, like say The Pacific (which is a great miniseries) the landing craft would never embark from the LST's so close to the beach and head directly in, they would circle around out of the artillery range, form up and head in. This isn't as dramatic as going straight in. That is the reason I put for all historical inaccuracy in movies "This way adds more drama".
I did like my English teachers always told me to do, add a concession it makes you look educated, if I am anything its that I am educated! So now to answer my friends' question, with "I do". I think it is morally wrong to spare historical accuracy for drama, and for the sake of getting more money. In the case of The Pacific I think it would of been more dramatic to see the tension build as the landing craft circled around waiting to head in. Another counter I have heard to this exact statement is "that would be boring", I think circling around would build up the tension as you are anticipating the landing. I also think that in sacrificing historical accuracy you also do a great disservice to veterans and their memories.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)