Is this real life? Are they on some shit? Also, nice job using Spec Ops: The Line without context
Killing virtual people that have no effect on the real world and are literally called "generic enemy #486" in the game files sure is more violent then war that can be felt for generations. But yeah continue thinking video games are bad.
are we really doing this violent games scare again
They're video games, not combat simulators. A video game doesn't need to accurately represent what a soldier does in war because its supposed to be a form of entertainment.
Actual quote is this
He brings up an example of real-world military tactics. If the military is going to attack a group of defenders, typically it's going to want three times more soldiers than its adversary has. So, if a group of defenders is 30-people deep, the military will want to send in 90 soldiers. In video games, a level with a similar task is often carried out by either small teams or even one person – portraying the character as a one-man killing machine.
"Essentially that level, you would be having the player doing the killing that would normally be done by 90 soldiers in real life," Barron said. "In other words, you could say that level would be 90 times more violent than a military simulation."
He's talking about how the player character in video games sees a lot more "action" than an actual soldier would realistically
and news media has such a hard-on for tragedies that their skewed reporting presents the US as 90x more violent than it actually is
the difference is that video game violence doesn't give attention to real world school shooters with mugshots, names, and snuff being displayed live to millions of people
It's always hilarious to me when these sorts of pieces use pictures from Spec Ops: The Line.
Either way, looks like we're back to the same bullshit moral panic all over again. I was starting to think we were done with this shit.
I want to know what thought process led them to say "90 times more violent" instead of "100 times more violent"
They use an example that's already been quoted in the thread.
Basically in a military game, your character replaces about 90 soldiers worth of fire power, so you're about 90 times as violent as any one soldier would be.
It's not great logic really.
"Why isn't there a section in Call of Duty where you learn how to use turn signals, or read the 80 page convoy leader handbook, or sit in an outpost for hours while nothing happens"
I don't know, maybe because that's boring as shit?
it also implies video games that are violent are being irresponsible, which is bad imo
Funniest thing of this all is the fact they used Spec Ops: The Line. A game which itself is a statement about violence in video games and the trope of protagonists in said games.
Also as far as i know in games people don't actually die... Unlike in real war! They must have gone insane or something. Or have not seen any videos about the Syrian conflict or Iraq.
Rolling Stone manages to crank out such a wide array of garbage articles.
Video games are 90x more violent fun than actual war.
Yeah, cause otherwise we should be criticizing movies too:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FW2Q0W2V4q0
Movies are just as guilty of this.
Who loves John Wick?
That's basically murder porn.
What about the "Death Wish" Movies Trump loves so much?
Murder porn.
Games are not deserving of any special criticism. Maybe all our media is too violent, or maybe that doesn't matter, but jesus christ this article is just irresponsible.
It's not like call of duty is any less violent, spec ops just chooses not to make the victims abstract.
This article has to be self aware, and this thread's title is very sensationalist.
It doesn't even claim that games are 90 times more violent, rather loosely attributes that claim to a GDC talk about how games depict violence. I'm convinced that the article isn't trying to make any sort of statement but is merely riding on the video game violence fad for views.
Now should we discuss the integrity of journalism or how entertainment depicts violence?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUHgz8KOzyM
Clickbait title, he's just saying that videogames depict war like an action movie would. War IRL is 99% logistics/sitting around on guard duty, whereas videogames are Action Action Action Action, and even in real world battles, you wouldn't expect a single person to run up a hill blowing people away and capturing the objective in <10m
I think the speaker wants to capture the underrepresented parts of war
That actually sounds like a cool idea for a walking simulator to be honest.
They could use something even more extreme than Spec Ops, and they'd still not get something as fucked as war.
Surprise surprise that the person who said this was only deployed for seven months.
Well guess what, I had a woman in my assembly line who was in Afghanistan aswell, probably for a little more time than this guy, and she didn't see combat either, seeing how she was part of a checkpoint and not part of actually dangerous operations.
This is the same as saying "working in a factory isn't that bad, I don't get why people complain about it", and then finding how who said this worked in a cushy office, instead of something like a high speed assembly line that gives you 15 seconds to do each of your roles, or the painting process where you have to handle obviously hazardous powder based paint and handle extremely high temperatures that make you sweat even in the coldest of days.
But hey, I guess video games are a lot worse and evoke feelings a lot more than the statements of those ucranian soldiers who got to see their comrads getting shot and blown up from the front seat by russians taking over their positions.
Holy fuck, thinking about this makes me angry.
"Essentially that level, you would be having the player doing the
killing that would normally be done by 90 soldiers in real life," Barron
said. "In other words, you could say that level would be 90 times more
violent than a military simulation."
He references the military shooter Arma and how, as he puts it, the simple changes it makes to gameplay more closely resemble a real-world military operation. In Arma, players
are quickly taken down by bullets – one shot to the head and you're
dead. Additionally, players can play with a larger squad of allies,
planning out their attack and progressing cautiously. It gives players
something to do other than just shooting a gun, Barron said.
He wants more arma or some kind of kingdom come deliverance but for the iraq war so that people have better historical accuracy, bad title all right article although arma definitely isn't for everyone.
Total massive bullshit. Video games don't cause violence. Like a post above me said if they're going to start blaming games, they should start blaming movies as well.
The bible is 90% more violent than actual life in a desert. Fuggen ban it.
arma confirmed more violent than vbs
thanks rolling stone
It's been mentioned in passing but the headline is sort of inaccurate. Rolling Stone didn't say this, they were quoting a dev from Bohemia, specifically where he was talking about how unrealistic it is to have a single character kill 90 enemies in rapid fashion and how that really isn't an accurate portrayal of war at all.
The feelings i get when i play video games are not even remotely the same feelings I've got when stumbling across a video/picture of a dead body on the internet, stuff like this is full of shit.
the "1v100" trope is something that's been going on LONG before digital media was ever a thing, why is it only an issue when it's video games? and why are "video games" all assumed to be military shooters by MSM?? do games like The Sims not count? i guess because it just doesn't fit with their agenda that "all video gaemz r bad"
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
