After debating long and hard as to whether to enter this discussion and wondering what I could bring to it, without aiding it into a continuing spiral. I decided to a small amount of research and go back to Bacca’s original quote.
"14 different "war games" scenarios at locations around the country tied together under the banners of some serious industry and media support. The Big Idea that ties them all together is the notion these are educational studies on the futility of conflict and how such might be avoided in the future. Pretty clever but does that change anything and does it really matter? How big a deal are wargame scenarios anyway?
(And yes, I know, some discussions have touched on this subject before but look at what seems like an explosion of scenario games and new products like Tippmann's A-5. Seems like a lot is suddenly being actively invested in the Rambo side of pball.)"
To try and understand what exactly he was asking.
I looked up the definition of Scenario it is “ an Outline of a plot, or a Postulated sequence of future events”
A paintball game whether it is a rec day a big game or x-ball is based on a scenario. This is your purpose for playing i.e the first flag grab, eliminate the other team players or occupy an oppositions home base.
When fantasy, sci-fi or war themes are introduced it is to aid the player to become some one else for the day and to increase their enjoyment and participation.
For example I have a friend who is more sloth like than I care to mention, but put a marker in his hand and say your job above all else is to get to the 50m marker and grab that flag, and he goes like a bat out of hell.
Also when you introduce a story line people tend to be more creative, with the addition of costumes and props, just look at the thousands who play Dungeons and Dragons, and big games already.
In this respect any game is educational, players must learn skills such as pateince, communication and accuracy making them better players and therefore utimately increasing the enjoyment of the game.
I have deliberately skirted the war game scenario, because if you are introducing, fictional characters and landscape but saying you are to opposing factions of a country who are arguing over a water source, you must destroy their three bases. Eliminate the chain of command and take prisoners, then this is a war scenario and is as acceptable as using any other story. As the majority of any scenarios will still fall under the classification of war which by definition is “armed hostilities between esp. nations” “Hosility or contention between people”.
When you use Factual places and people to describe games you are then entering into a very tender subject, as you all have proven above.
Is it acceptible to say the groups are called America and Japan or England and Germany? Yes in a perfect world. Where we all live together as one people and have put aside all bigotries and hatred. BUT we have not.
I feel the use of actual past conflicts is use in the most part to generate a hightned conflict in the group, as we have proved every one has an opinion of what is right and wrong, and who is right or wrong in a conflict. Take the September 11th devastation and death under any circumstance is wrong. But there will be many who believe (and forgive for I am not one of them) that America had encouraged this conflict and the action of the few was justified. I beleive under any circumstance, to use this WW11, the Vietnam war, or any other conflict is wrong. It is not educational, they do not begin at the beginning of the day and say how many died on either side, they do not say how long countries tried to avoid the ultimate conflict, or how long it took them to recover after it. They do not tell you af the atroucities commited on both side and they do not emphasise that war is the greatest horror that xould be reeked upon a people.
For the most part to me they use these as tools for an easy situation which they know will stir up feeling in pretty much every one.
And as we stand on the brink of war yet again, do we feel it is fitting that we should continue to do this?
They only way it will stop is if we stop playing them or speak out and say we would prefer not to.
Does it change anything? Yes I believe it does. What we foster as a people is passed down through generations as a learning tool for the young. What we believe as paintballers around the globe will become the accepted norm for the next generation, this is how the game develops. If we speak out we may feel like a lone voice in the wilderness, but when we stand up and be counted then we can change it. May be if Big game organisers questioned their customers they may find more people who would prefer to change. Many people feel they have no say because they are not asked.
Well I am asking.
What are we going to do about it?
