• How Video Games Are Funding Gun Manufacturers // HeavyEyed
    18 replies, posted
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbQ5SOeO2EQ
It's just about licensing real-world firearms, right?
I'm a bit disappointed at how US-centric the video is. Games are played across the planet and saying "children buy more of a specific airsoft model when that model appears in a game" is pretty vague, and I'm not sure where the tie is between airsoft guns being bought because a gun appeared in a video game and real guns seeing extra purchases. The FAMAS example being a particularly bad one in that regard seeing as the FAMAS not a commercially available firearm and its recognition by the public leading to extra purchases of airsoft models cannot have any direct bearing on the well-being of the gun industry.
I think that's just a natural consequence of the entire FPS genre unless everybody were to collectively decide to never use a real gun.
Yeah. It's unfortunate, but it's not enough to stop me from playing my rooty tooty point and shooties.
I don't think it's really a valid argument because it's not exactly a realistic standard to set. Firearms, being a thing that exists and is as common as they are in the real world, are inevitably going to make their way in any media; film, music, video games, literature, so on and so forth. And a large amount of creators want their work to feel as realistic as possible, because it often improves the quality of the art, so they're going to go for whatever is real.
I will say that certain video games have given me an affinity for certain guns, even though I'm not a gun owner (though I do wish to own a personal firearm at some point). MGS1 made me think the FAMAS design was rad, Tomb Raider and Half Life 2 both use the USP match pistol (mgs also has the USP), Vectors, XM8s, AUGs, G36s - I've even had airsoft versions of some of my favorite video game guns in the past. That being said I've never had the urge to own anything more than a handgun, even though I think the designs and aesthetics of other guns are awesome.
The Cybergun FAMAS is so bad lmao, there is no good FAMAS airsoft """"GUN"""
My point is, if someone wants to be consistent with their concerns and not just pat themselves on the back, they're going to have an unrealistically rough time to get around all media involving firearms based on these concerns.
I don't see anything wrong with realistic depictions of firearms as to some people, including me, use them as a way to get interested in other subjects. Often times, firearms are linked to history and other military interests. I have learned to not only respect guns as dangerous tools, but also learned to respect the soldiers and police who wield them along with branching that interest out to other military interests like tanks, navies and past wars. I don't see any difference between this and Hollywood popularizing guns like the Model 29 from Dirty Harry or the Desert Eagle or AA-12 these days. I'm thinking that Americans have a completely different view on this, but at least for me and a bunch of other people I personally know in an Asian country across the world with no legal weapon ownership whatsoever, realistic depiction of firearms is cool as heck as it is the closest we will ever get to actually handling the things except for during the yearly military celebration and the only ones who will keep an extended interest in them will be the ones who were already interested in military matters anyway.
I agree with this. As far as I'm concerned, representation for firearms in video games is just the same as representation of cars, aircraft, tools and more. One of the main goals of a developer is to provide a unique and engaging experience to their audience. One of the most effective ways to make sure that experience is properly met is to reference as much of the world as possible, in order to make the experience more believable to the player. Licensing guns is merely another step into realizing that goal, just as a racing game would license real world cars and manufacturers. People desire to enjoy things that they are already familiar with, as that familiarity can make a consumer more comfortable with the idea investing themselves into a product. It's why established IP's are such a big deal. If someone has enjoyed a previous game, such as Portal, they will be more receptive to buying Portal 2, because they feel that it is a safe investment of their time and money, with less risk of getting burned on it. Likewise, when someone buys a copy of FIFA, there is a fairly high chance that they already watch the World Cup, and it could be a good gateway for people who may have never played video games before. And this relevance can go both ways. By referencing real-world objects in games, players are given the opportunity to develop an attachment to that object. If someone is in a scenario where the gun they are using gets them out of a tough situation, the player will naturally develop an attachment to that gun, and will likely choose it over other guns in the future as they feel more comfortable with it. In some ways, it helps them form their own identity. By developing an attachment to an object like that, they will be able to recall it in other forms of media, or they may even encounter it in day-to-day life, and can see enjoyment out of noticing it. It's up to the developers and the players to decide what an object means to them. If someone isn't supportive of a type of industry, there are many ways to express that. In one instance, they could just opt to not buy anything related to that industry, and that's fine. Although the way I see it, it would be better to instead contribute towards the discussion yourself, and provide experiences to the player that changes their outlook on a person, place or thing. If a person doesn't like the idea of guns and the culture surrounding it, they should express their opinion by developing experiences where the player will naturally come to that conclusion themselves. Show the sides of a culture that aren't represented in the best light. By exposing players to this, they will be able to form a more balanced opinion on it, which I feel is a far more valuable way express yourself.
The dumbest part was when he said that AK47s and russian guns are given to the bad guys because western firearms manufacturers care about the bad guys using their guns in their games.
Yep. That's why a lot of games use generic or somewhat similar designs/names rather than real designations. It's also why Kojima opted to use generic gun designs over the real thing in MGSV since he realized it was kind of hypocritical to make anti-war games while funding the arms manufacturers. Personally, I'm not against using the real designs since I would prefer realism over something that looks off in some way, unless there's some very obvious sponsorship going on, like MW3's very obvious Remington guns.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.