[X] My Assistant

[Ravor]

Sure, however the problem that I've found with self-consistent philophies is "every-problem-starts-looking-like-a-nail" syndrone turns them into a joke when you try to expand them into the world at large.

As for the people objecting to the rifle instead of the soldier, you know as well as I do that it isn't really the firearm they are objecting to, but it isn't PC to come out against anything else.

[Kagetenshi]

I'm really not seeing your argument against self-consistent philosophies. Could you give me an example of the kind of problem you mean?

~J

[Critias]

Basically, I think all the "video games lead to sociopathic behavior" arguments -- just like all the old D&D ones, and the rock music ones, and the rap music ones -- rely on the person in question to have a serious mental breakdown, and then revert to the behavior "trained" into them by whatever facet of pop culture is being blamed this week.

Someone that murders their parents and kills themselves didn't do it because of D&D. They did it by being a crazy ass, and D&D turned into their excuse. Kids that go on active shooter rampages at schools don't do it because of Doom or Rainbow Six. They do it by being a crazy ass that snaps, and then sees acting out as a valid alternative to another day of school. That "vampire cult" in Florida (or was it Georgia?) a couple years ago that killed a few families and stuff had less to do with Vampire: The Masquerade than it did with peer pressure, weak personalities being led around by strong ones, and other assorted crazy-ass symptoms.

But in each case, it's not the act itself the media wants to blame (or even the actor), but the prop. I saw a few articles just in recent weeks where D&D online or "teh intrawebs" are being blamed for a few very disturbing, very severe, cases of child endangerment, malnourishment, and even an outright "oops the baby starved to death" case. In each of them, the headline of the article (which is all 90% of people read) has been sure to mention that it's the distraction's fault, and not the shitty parent's. Nevermind that the same fuckwit could've been amused by a shiney, jangly, set of keys being dangled in front of their face or ignored their baby to death over daytime television...it's trendy to blame something instead of someone, for just about every crime anyone commits nowadays.

[Aku]

[bibliophile20]

[Kagetenshi]

I'd object to the simplistic portrayal of people as "crazy ass"—there's usually a lot more going into these things, sometimes including environmental factors that would destabilize most people. That said, since the entire point of my objection is that it's dangerous to stop asking "why" too quickly, it applies even more to the practice of finding a vaguely-related hobby and labeling it the cause.

~J

[Aku]

i agree with Kage, i think. Everytime someone points to something someone did and say "the videogames made them do it!" i can point to a lot more people and say "well, then why didnt the do it?"

Secondly, if "violent" video games make people violent, why the hell do my hours and hours of playing madden and NHL hockey games not make me a fragging badass athlete?

(please, avoid the pun "Because you're playing the video game and not the real one")

[PBTHHHHT]

[Ravor]

The short answer is to watch the "talking heads" that appear on political "news"shows and host talk radio and then try to apply their professed beliefs to the world at large.

[Aku]

ya know, i now life in the south, i wonder, what the people who object to statues of fallen soldiers, think of people flying the confederate flag, like they do down here?....


i personally find it incrediably disrespectful, but i cant touch on way. I'd think it's because it's no longer a "nation" that exists. I dont have the same feelings towards people of various descents of europe, or anywhere else, flying their "homelands" flag.

I wonder what my feelings would be if we say, took over canada, and the canadians still flew their national flag under the american flag...


(not to say i think we should attack canada, just a theoretical idea)

[Critias]

[Fortune]

[Kagetenshi]

[PBTHHHHT]

[Kagetenshi]

Maine declared war on them, so I figure that's enough justification for me.

~J

[Sterling]

I think the OP is onto something, but it's not impossible to roleplay in a FPS.

I often offer two hostages for a Steyr Aug in Counterstrike. Often I'll even trade them for a bucket of KFC. As a counter terrorist I'll explain that I have to rescue the hostages because 'one of them owes me five bucks' or 'he's my brother-in-law.' I don't know if I'm helping the case here or not.

But there's one genre of game that's even more sociopathic, and that's the RTS. When you command units that are small and slightly cartoonish, you don't really value them as troops under your command, they're just an investment of resources. So you're viewing them like a typical CEO, then. I doubt anyone thinks "crap, Johnson bought it in that assault on the zerg/GLA/orc base, and he was two weeks from getting out. He had a wife and four kids, too. What a shame. War, war never changes..."

Hell, some crank out units to send to the grinder just to keep the enemy busy for a few minutes, or because there's a unit cap and they want to replace the older, less useful units with newer upgraded ones.

I think the FPSes that aren't as sociopathic are the ones that give you the options of either killing all or using other methods (stealth, different routes, non lethal methods) of subduing or bypassing enemies.

[Kagetenshi]

The question is, is a RTT game like Myth more or less sociopathic? After all, each individual member of your fighting force is an important component of your individual strength, but you also need to make the deliberate and conscious choice to send one of them out into that field of Wights if your bowmen or fir'bolg are overwhelmed.

Plus, there's the Dwarves…

~J

[Critias]

Sometimes I take prisoners when the terrorists in Rainbow Six drop to their knees and put their hands behind their head. It's dangerous, and requires approaching them and standing still for several seconds while you hold down the button, but it's the right thing to do to an opponent who has surrendered.

Sometimes I have ammo to spare, though, and I remember they're not uniformed combatants and as such aren't covered by the Geneva Convention, etc. So instead I give 'em two to the chest and one to the head, and call it a day.

[nezumi]

When I play RTSes I always try to minimize troop losses :( Except when I'm playing as the zerg. In that case, I go with the hive mentality and assume that all the little zerglings happily give up their lives for the wellbeing of the hive. But playing the humans in Warcraft? I almost spend more time bringing back wounded troops to heal them up than I do actually fighting, and when I can't heal, I 'retire' them to backwater watch posts where they're unlikely to see action.

Maybe I'm just a big softie...

[hyzmarca]

[Talia Invierno]

Not touching the celebrating soldiers v. celebrating war part of this discussion: it's not relevant, and is potentially heated enough to completely derail this thread.

[Kagetenshi]

[Talia Invierno]

I think that every action involves choice: even if that choice is as simple as to do anything to make it stop hurting.

Our choices can be influenced by others, but they cannot be made for us by others.

[Angelone]

The military now has the EST (Engagment skills trainer) which uses realistic weapons with recoil, weight, and magazine reloads. There are a bunch of scenarios, such as zeroing, qualifing, shoot don't shoot, and wartime. Some of them are fairly immersive, but no matter how real it seems you still know it's a game. So yeah, video games can be used to train soldiers.

[Kagetenshi]