Opting Out of Playing the Bad Guys

[bayonetbrant]

ORIGINAL: warspite1
Yes there was a thread on this subject and no, it didn't end badly, it just fizzled out.

tm.asp?m=4668657

I said on that thread - and say again - that this is a subject war gamers and war game designers and producers should be talking about because it affects the future of the industry. I suggested that Matrix offer a few thoughts, but disappointingly this wasn't taken up.

There is no reason for this discussion topic to end poorly or get locked. What is being debated is pertinent and can't be ignored. There is no reason why we, as war gamers who spend our hard earned GBP/$/€ etc on games shouldn't be discussing the industry's future direction is there?

Well, it was locked before it could fizzle.

And the reason the discussions end poorly or get locked is that too many people seem fundamentally incapable of engaging an argument on it's merits without reflexively defaulting to any number of logical fallacies, whether a slippery slope argument or a false dichotomy argument or a wicked alternative argument or any number if borderline-irrelevant straw man arguments. There's a half dozen in this thread alone.

Many folks seem to react at a visceral level based on some really poor headline-writing (especially true with the New York Times article) and refuse to even read the articles/watch the videos under discussion. Many also claim that the mere source of the article is sufficient for thoughtless dismissal.

The bottom line is that these questions aren't new - David Hughes wrote an article about this for Battles! Magazine back in 2009. They're not going away as the gaming audience diversifies. And many of them ask some pertinent and thoughtful questions, like Rob Zany's column at VICE did.

We recorded a loooong podcast about this last week over at Armchair Dragoons, wherein we discuss the latest blowup, some of the previous blowups, and why many of the questions being asked are perfectly valid questions, but still facing hostility for even being asked.

https://www.armchairdragoons.com/podcas ... 9-edition/

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: bayonetbrant

ORIGINAL: warspite1
Yes there was a thread on this subject and no, it didn't end badly, it just fizzled out.

tm.asp?m=4668657

I said on that thread - and say again - that this is a subject war gamers and war game designers and producers should be talking about because it affects the future of the industry. I suggested that Matrix offer a few thoughts, but disappointingly this wasn't taken up.

There is no reason for this discussion topic to end poorly or get locked. What is being debated is pertinent and can't be ignored. There is no reason why we, as war gamers who spend our hard earned GBP/$/€ etc on games shouldn't be discussing the industry's future direction is there?

Well, it was locked before it could fizzle.

The bottom line is that these questions aren't new

warspite1

Well that's the first thread I've seen locked with no comment.... strange.

Who said they were new? So the fact you've done a 'loooong podcast' last week mean that no one else can discuss it? What was your 'loooong podcast' the last word on the subject?


Edit: If I'd seen that the last thread was locked I wouldn't have bothered commenting here. Post removed Matrix with apologies.

[Kuokkanen]

ORIGINAL: jwarrenw13

Okay, I got the impression that the video was more about first person shooter type online games. Those present many more questions than the type of abstract and more complex computer games played here. There is the whole layer, as mentioned above, about the question of whether those type games promote violence or desensitize young people especially regarding gun violence, and whether they might trigger young people who are mentally unstable. That is a legitimate question for discussion. There is a huge difference between Fortnite and War in the East.

I'm an adult from Finland. Here we play largely the same kinds of games as you Americans do, including first-person shooters, Grand Theft Auto, and the likes. Yet we don't go around shooting people, and I believe that applies to great majority of other countries where video games are in the mainstream. Were people shot in America before video games entered the market? How many % of terrorists have played violent video games before they became terrorists?

Then there is the question of the interaction in online games. I have no firsthand experience there because I have purposely avoided online games since they came into existence and have just never played them, including playing an online opponent in a more sophisticated game. However, as an American high school (grades 9-12 in the US system, and I teach English to students in grade 12) teacher, I know that many of my students play online games like Fortnite and others. They talk about them a lot and try to play them on their phones in class when they can. Some are quite addicted.

I used to play Duke Nukem 3D in school. Few other games too, most of them shooters. Delta Force II demo may have been the first Internet multiplayer game I have played. I have read many Internet multiplayer games are plagued with players who insult other players and demonstrate poor "sportsmanship". You know, I got a piece of that in school's computer classrooms outside of text chat. I don't think it felt much different from the bullying that didn't involve computers. After schools, I have played a small number of online games. My experiences with players on the games & servers are considerably better than what I had in computer classrooms in vocational school. At least with Internet in the way, I don't get thrown eraser pieces and other crap on me. Is this a bad thing?

[bayonetbrant]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Who said they were new? So the fact you've done a 'loooong podcast' last week mean that no one else can discuss it? What was your 'loooong podcast' the last word on the subject?

Oh hell no! [X(]

There's plenty to be discussed, and there's always someone who missed the previous discussions that might well have some meaningful contributions.

The hope is that they are "discussions" and not pre-scripted shoutfests [;)]

[RangerJoe]

I read online that the data shows that the US is less violent than before. Mass shootings and such did happen but there were no 24 hour news outlets. Think of when it was just newspapers and the telegraph was the means of sending information at so much cost per word. Think of the song "The Night Chicago Died" which was based on what the songwriters got from movies.

[Zorch]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

I read online that the data shows that the US is less violent than before. Mass shootings and such did happen but there were no 24 hour news outlets. Think of when it was just newspapers and the telegraph was the means of sending information at so much cost per word. Think of the song "The Night Chicago Died" which was based on what the songwriters got from movies.

We are so much more aware of events in the world.

[danlongman]

It is unfortunate but for political and cultural reasons some audiences
cannot accept criticism. I hope that we are well educated enough
around here to understand that contrary opinions, especially about deeply
held or controversial beliefs and values arouse an emotional response at
a visceral level. The intellect disengages but the emotions are quite
willing to run the show. The discussion tail spins into a partisan
squabble.
I have been harshly criticized and even banned from places for having
opinions some people found offensive. Group think is an awesome thing
when a thought can be anathema because of collective values. Enemies will
rally together to eject the perceived outsider.
My only point about politics and gaming is that the combatants in conflict
rarely see themselves as being evil doers or being on the wrong side. Most
are doing something they believe to be necessary.
Many people here who picture themselves as personally being mighty warriors
for a certain set of "proper" values would - under different circumstances
of birth and indoctrination - just as righteously be mighty warriors for the
opposite side.
All that aside most of our games portray state or culturally sanctioned
violence but that does mean we condone it by playing a side. They are games.
I remember in my long ago youth gamers who would only play one side and wore
items or insignia and talked exclusively in "Panzer" accents and did other
bits of role playing. Hopefully these folks outgrew this and managed in later
life to be incarcerated at the county or state but not federal level.

[Lobster]

I always find the distinction between who was the good guys and who were the bad guys is drawn by who wins. The Soviets invaded 4 peaceful countries before the war even started and not a word about it. Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. They marched into part of Romania and seized that pre war. They invaded Poland along with Germany. The Soviets murdered thousands of Polish officers. The Soviets appear as heroes in virtually every war game simply because they were on the Allied side. They starved millions of Ukrainians to death in what is called the Ukraine Holocaust (Holodomor). The Stalin regime was every bit as ruthless and evil as the Hitler Regime. But they were on the winning side. It's all too subjective to even bother with.

[Zorch]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

I always find the distinction between who was the good guys and who were the bad guys is drawn by who wins. The Soviets invaded 4 peaceful countries before the war even started and not a word about it. Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.

The US never recognized the incorporation of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania into the Soviet Union. Maps of the Soviet Union used to have a disclaimer to that effect.

[JWW]

ORIGINAL: Kuokkanen
I'm an adult from Finland. Here we play largely the same kinds of games as you Americans do, including first-person shooters, Grand Theft Auto, and the likes. Yet we don't go around shooting people, and I believe that applies to great majority of other countries where video games are in the mainstream. Were people shot in America before video games entered the market? How many % of terrorists have played violent video games before they became terrorists?

Good point. I had of course been primarily thinking of America because there is a big discussion now about the effect of violent video games on American kids and we've just had a series of mass shootings. I had not considered how they may or may not be affecting young people around the world. I will have to think more about that. Politicians and commentators here in American want SOMETHING done, and violent video games are in the discussion.

Also Rangerjoe and Zorch pointed out another factor that affects everyone's thinking, the 24-hour news cycle and instant access to news via the Internet. I've always been something of a new junkie with a college degree in journalism (1977, the distant past) and part of my Army career spent in public relations including talking to the media. And I do think that the instant availability of news and the way events like mass shootings are covered warps to some extent our ability to look at things in perspective. For example, we cover the mass shooting but more people are shot in a typical weekend in some of our larger cities, but there is virtually no coverage of that.

One thing I remember from my journalism classes is Marshall McCluhan's quote, "The medium is the message." He wrote that in 1964 not long after the dawn of the age of live TV news. We applied it to TV, with the idea that TV focused more on stories that had video and less on those without video. That is still true. Now we are shifting again, with more emphasis on the instant capabilities of the Internet to spread information both real and false, and with everyone so much more connected, including for online gaming.

[demyansk]

It's not the video games, but lack of parenting and males in the household.

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: Zorch

ORIGINAL: Lobster

I always find the distinction between who was the good guys and who were the bad guys is drawn by who wins. The Soviets invaded 4 peaceful countries before the war even started and not a word about it. Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.

The US never recognized the incorporation of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania into the Soviet Union. Maps of the Soviet Union used to have a disclaimer to that effect.

Not my point at all.

[bayonetbrant]

ORIGINAL: jwarrenw13

One thing I remember from my journalism classes is Marshall McCluhan's quote, "The medium is the message." He wrote that in 1964 not long after the dawn of the age of live TV news. We applied it to TV, with the idea that TV focused more on stories that had video and less on those without video.

That was absolutely *not* the point of McLuhan's assertion that the medium itself was the message being sent.

It is more closely related to McLuhan's ideas about hot/cool media, but even there it's not really where McLuhan was going.

[Zap]

I would just like a clarification on whats the politic policy is here. That's all.

[rico21]

The bad guys of some are not necessarily the bad guys of others.
We can play them all for the simple reason that wargames are not roleplays.

[JWW]

Oops. You can delete this one.

[JWW]

ORIGINAL: bayonetbrant

ORIGINAL: jwarrenw13

One thing I remember from my journalism classes is Marshall McCluhan's quote, "The medium is the message." He wrote that in 1964 not long after the dawn of the age of live TV news. We applied it to TV, with the idea that TV focused more on stories that had video and less on those without video.

That was absolutely *not* the point of McLuhan's assertion that the medium itself was the message being sent.

It is more closely related to McLuhan's ideas about hot/cool media, but even there it's not really where McLuhan was going.

It appears you missed the part where I wrote, "We applied it to..." So maybe I'm a little more aware of McLuhan's thinking than you think I am. He was a very interesting character, and one of our journalism professors was rather obsessed with him. He did make some interesting predictions.

One of his own explanations was, "The medium is the message. This is merely to say that the personal and social consequences of any medium - that is, of any extension of ourselves - result from the new scale that is introduced into our affairs by each extension of ourselves, or by any new technology."

He was indeed interested in the effects TV and of new technology, and made some interesting predictions about the future of communications and technology.

For example: "Politics will eventually be replaced by imagery. The politician will be only too happy to abdicate in favor of his image, because the image will be much more powerful than he could ever be." He nailed that one.

[TDefender]

232.000 dislikes vs 15.000 likes, thankfully.

[Gilmer]

Dear Mr. Kuokannen,

I'm not saying you're saying this. But I'm saying it to the ones who claim video games make you violent. I have played many, many, many violent first person shooters and not once have I ever thought it was right, good, or anything but despicable to go out and shoot real live people.

[Gilmer]

ORIGINAL: bayonetbrant

ORIGINAL: warspite1
Yes there was a thread on this subject and no, it didn't end badly, it just fizzled out.

tm.asp?m=4668657

I said on that thread - and say again - that this is a subject war gamers and war game designers and producers should be talking about because it affects the future of the industry. I suggested that Matrix offer a few thoughts, but disappointingly this wasn't taken up.

There is no reason for this discussion topic to end poorly or get locked. What is being debated is pertinent and can't be ignored. There is no reason why we, as war gamers who spend our hard earned GBP/$/€ etc on games shouldn't be discussing the industry's future direction is there?

Well, it was locked before it could fizzle.

And the reason the discussions end poorly or get locked is that too many people seem fundamentally incapable of engaging an argument on it's merits without reflexively defaulting to any number of logical fallacies, whether a slippery slope argument or a false dichotomy argument or a wicked alternative argument or any number if borderline-irrelevant straw man arguments. There's a half dozen in this thread alone.

Many folks seem to react at a visceral level based on some really poor headline-writing (especially true with the New York Times article) and refuse to even read the articles/watch the videos under discussion. Many also claim that the mere source of the article is sufficient for thoughtless dismissal.

The bottom line is that these questions aren't new - David Hughes wrote an article about this for Battles! Magazine back in 2009. They're not going away as the gaming audience diversifies. And many of them ask some pertinent and thoughtful questions, like Rob Zany's column at VICE did.

We recorded a loooong podcast about this last week over at Armchair Dragoons, wherein we discuss the latest blowup, some of the previous blowups, and why many of the questions being asked are perfectly valid questions, but still facing hostility for even being asked.

https://www.armchairdragoons.com/podcas ... 9-edition/

The video originally posted was roundly criticized by a lot of people, though. People know what they are buying, so trying to educate them after or anyone acting like they didn't know, is bonkers, if you ask me.