The Ethics of Battlefield: Hardline

[itsamoose]

Not providing a "commentary" and presenting the world in a certain way without addressing why it is that certain way is a commentary in itself. 

 

Isn't that just a lazy way of justifying not having to provide a commentary?  Sure if you do something out of the ordinary and don't comment on it, that might be considered commentary because I am naturally able to infer meaning in that case.  However so far everything we have seen about Battlefield: Hardline is just so bog standard.  The game modes are standard, the weapons/abilities/mechanics are standard, hell even the marketing material explicitly states that the story is modeled after popular crime dramas.  If they were taking a serious deviation from the norm, that might be interesting, but really they haven't made the structural changes to the game's design for anything they are doing to be considered a commentary.  All in all this game feels like the College Freshman's idea of philosophy, its exciting and new but not entirely understood.

[SecretAsianMan]

@SecreteAsianMan If games are art, and I believe they are, then nothing is off the table. Whether it is from past, present or recent events. Between movies, comics, music, multimedia, and games there are a billion examples of what Hardline is portraying. Does that mean we should dismiss it no? Does that say something, as JonCole proposes? Yep.

 

I'm a little confused as to why one product deserves so much attention and lamentation when millions/billions of others have presented these issues with the same superficiality?

 

I agree with both of those thoughts.  I was just taking exception to the idea that because a game isn't explicitly "about" a topic it can't be discussed or analyzed with respect to that topic.  If that's not what you were saying then I misinterpreted you and I apologize.

[JonCole]

Isn't that just a lazy way of justifying not having to provide a commentary?  Sure if you do something out of the ordinary and don't comment on it, that might be considered commentary.  However so far everything we have seen about Battlefield: Hardline is just so bog standard.  The game modes are standard, the weapons/abilities/mechanics are standard, hell even the marketing material explicitly states that the story is modeled after popular crime dramas.  If they were taking a serious deviation from the norm, that might be interesting, but really they haven't made the structural changes to the game's design for anything they are doing to be considered a commentary.  All in all this game feels like the College Freshman's idea of philosophy, its exciting and new but not entirely understood.

 

I think you misinterpreted my point. I was saying that not having an overt commentary is a message in itself, like an implicit approval of the world constructed. If they militarized the police in the game and actually had a scene where the police provided a completely disproportionate response to a relatively non-violent situation, that would be an implicit disapproval because it's portraying the negative slant of that world. Instead, it'll probably just be a business as usual shooter where all of the militarization is justified because I guess the robbers have guns and aren't afraid to use them.

[itsamoose]

I think you misinterpreted my point. I was saying that not having an overt commentary is a message in itself, like an implicit approval of the world constructed. If they militarized the police in the game and actually had a scene where the police provided a completely disproportionate response to a relatively non-violent situation, that would be an implicit disapproval because it's portraying the negative slant of that world.

 

No I understand what you meant, but I think I came off a little more combative than intended.  My criticism was more that any commentary not explicitly provided by the game, or at least heavily inferred by it is not something the game can take credit for since that commentary only exists in the minds of players that are willing to make that connection.  Perhaps the game was the vehicle for the player making that connection, but its not like GM can take credit for the work of ambulances just because they make the engines.  More than anything I'm just frustrated with game developers thinking they can get away with glorification of things we all agree are bad by simply claiming their intent is to subvert the idea, which usually amounts to little more than a QTE, cutscene, or background element like you described.  Ever since the UAV level in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare this seems to be the trend.

 

 Instead, it'll probably just be a business as usual shooter where all of the militarization is justified because I guess the robbers have guns and aren't afraid to use them.

 

Yeah, probably.

[JonCole]

Okay, we're in heated agreement. There's definitely a spectrum between the lazy, casual glorification that you're talking about and a theoretical, deliberate representation that makes light of an issue (I guess this could be something like Spec Ops, although even that game doesn't pull it off anywhere near perfectly).

[Murdoc]

I agree with both of those thoughts.  I was just taking exception to the idea that because a game isn't explicitly "about" a topic it can't be discussed or analyzed with respect to that topic.  If that's not what you were saying then I misinterpreted you and I apologize.

Ah, yeah, I would agree with that, I must have misunderstood the original message, or wasn't thinking about it in that context. 

[SuperBiasedMan]

Apart from everything previously said, I take issue with the games assumption that the police are against criminals, when really the police serve all people, including criminals. That's why criminals still have enforceable rights and can be victims of crimes. Police are peace keepers, not adversaries of people who break a law/s.

[BobbyBesar]

Not providing a "commentary" and presenting the world in a certain way without addressing why it is that certain way is a commentary in itself. 

See: Tomodachi Life.

[Gormongous]

I also just want to say that Hardline actually presents an equivalent response since the criminals are just as armed and dangerous as the police while Ferguson is entirely one sided.  That's not a point in Hardline's favor, just an observation.

 

I'm coming late to this, but I want to tease this out. I think one of the things that makes Battlefield: Hardline more than a little troublesome is that it depicts criminals as heavily armed and organized. In the world of Hardline, which will be realized for the average player in greater detail than the news broadcasts from Ferguson, the militarization of the police is entirely appropriate, because there are criminals with AK47s and C4 out there blowing up entire buildings. In reality, the police are just as heavily armed as they are in the game, but they're deployed against unarmed protesters and news reporters. That's some virulent propaganda, whatever the original intent.

[Gamemore]

Obviously they should have set the game in 1997 and made it a tie-in to Escape from New York.

[Merus]

Apart from everything previously said, I take issue with the games assumption that the police are against criminals, when really the police serve all people, including criminals. That's why criminals still have enforceable rights and can be victims of crimes. Police are peace keepers, not adversaries of people who break a law/s.

 

I just want to highlight this because I've never seen this so clearly expressed.

[Denial]

 In reality, the police are just as heavily armed as they are in the game, but they're deployed against unarmed protesters and news reporters. That's some virulent propaganda, whatever the original intent.

 

I think that's the thing that is really striking about this for me. The kinds of weaponry and equipment we're seeing levelled at unarmed black people in Ferguson maps uncomfortably to the vision of policing-as-actioner in BF:H.

 

(And indeed to the LAPD - since the shooting of Michael Brown, LAPD officers in the Newton division shot and killed Ezell Ford, another unarmed young black man.)

 

I don't know if DICE should be thinking about this stuff, or whether video games in general should be addressing it (actually, I do know that, but I try to be realistic in my aspirations), but it creates an ice cream headache of cognitive dissonance...

[Murdoc]

This isn't made by DICE.

[JonCole]

It's made by Visceral but DICE is also doing some work on it, naturally. They're referred to as "Visceral Games in collaboration with DICE" or something like that.

[Murdoc]

Yes I know, but to say this is DICE's game would be incorrect. Not to get hung up on the details.

[JonCole]

Oh yeah, I agree with you. I was just trying to be more exact/clear.

[Denial]

Sure, but DICE also basically own the Battlefield brand. A bad brand extension ultimately I think hurts them more than it hurts Visceral...

[BobbyBesar]

You want a funny (well, "funny") illustration of the militarization of police forces (among other things)?

 

Play Police Quest.

Then Police Quest:SWAT.

Then

.

Then Battlefield: Hardline.

[Dewar]

Sure, but DICE also basically own the Battlefield brand. A bad brand extension ultimately I think hurts them more than it hurts Visceral...

 

I imagine that DICE doesn't have much of a say in anything at this point. Do you really think there's any room for artistic expression left in EA?

[Griddlelol]

I've come round to changing my stance on this game after reading the news of what's happening in Ferguson. I still don't feel as strongly about it as others on this forum do, but it definitely seems like a bad idea to release this now.

[Zeusthecat]

I've come round to changing my stance on this game after reading the news of what's happening in Ferguson. I still don't feel as strongly about it as others on this forum do, but it definitely seems like a bad idea to release this now.

 

Yeah, I feel the same way. After seeing everything that has been happening in Ferguson, I realize this issue is much more serious than I originally gave it credit for and I think the theme they are going with is irresponsible at best.

[Murdoc]

Nearly every FPS theme is irresponsible at best if you consider the real life implications. Just because there are actual serious problems in the real world that are sort of, but not really related to a games theme (Meaning the real life problems that we are currently facing has nothing to do with one of the outcomes of those problems; militarized police)  makes me just baffled at the response some people are taking to Hardline when they haven't blinked at other games in the past.

 

I'm not trying to defend anything here or point fingers, but I feel like a back seat observer and am continually confused at how people can look at Hardline and say its appalling or irresponsible but didn't say anything for the countless war games in the middle east, Africa, or about WW2.

 

Maybe I'm dumb, approaching this from the wrong angle, but what's the difference other than timing?

[Gormongous]

Maybe I'm dumb, approaching this from the wrong angle, but what's the difference other than timing?

 

I don't have the time to go into a properly nuanced response, but I think timing makes all the difference. How we interpret the different theaters of World War 2 is a question for academics. How we interpret the militarization of the police is a question for everyone.

 

You're certainly right that a lot of the jingoistic "modern warfare" games of the past few years have mostly gotten a pass from ideological criticism, but that's never sat right with me, even though the consensus was that they were too absurd to take seriously. It might just be that hypothetical oorah military action halfway across the globe is far enough away to be taken less than seriously, while Hardline is close to home.

[feelthedarkness]

I think your "modern military shooter" has received a fair amount of criticism. I'm a strong supporter of Spec Ops: The Line, which was a decently budgeted, and almost popular direct criticism of the genre. Progressive critique isn't exactly the salve of the masses. 

[SuperBiasedMan]

makes me just baffled at the response some people are taking to Hardline when they haven't blinked at other games in the past.

I'm similarly unkeen on other realistic FPS games to be honest, in general they serve to reinforce a presumed social narrative that's based on inaccurate ideas. As said before, the game implies that the police and criminals are on equal footing in capability. People soak this subconscious messaging up and then when Fergusson happens they don't think it's unreasonable for the police to have the equipment they do.

 

It doesn't make Battlefield the only culprit but it's not pushing back against harmful presumptions. I feel the exact same way about other military shooters, but Hardline was just the game being discussed here.