Atomic Games: Six Days in Fallujah

[Dietrich]

Your comment made me interested in the precise reasons. [...] So one of the three objectors mentioned the civilian issue. Of course, I'm sure there were more, but in my limited search these were the only four quoted objections I could find, and only by three people. That's my sample space right here!

Point taken, Herr Feldmarschall. Had I not forgotten to accord the prior posters to this thread the respect they deserve, I would have re-read the thread and then decided my assessment.

Ok, then what about somewhere other than Fallujah? What would the consensus be about an FPS wherein the player is a SOF operator hunting HVTs in Afghanistan in 2001/2002?

I still think FPS games and military "sims" still are well off the mark in terms of realism because no matter how much of a game takes place in a densely populated city from which the civilian populace has expressly not been evacuated, the player never encounters civilians in game. (I should say almost never, since, though I've never encoutered a civilian in any FPS or "tactical shooter" I've played, I admit I have played only a relative few such games.)

Were an FPS or a "tactical shooter" to include civilians, this would be seen not as being in accord with tactical reality of modern war -- where the typical Blue soldier has to distinguish, even at extended ranges, between armed combatants and unarmed civilians -- but as an excuse for some Harris/Klebold wannabe to massacre pixelvolk. Cuz you just know some malicious-hearted 15-year-old boy would buy the game, discover that there are both enemy combatants and innocent civilians, and would then spend all his free time shooting digital victims; sooner or later his mom would find out, she would be horrified (and rightly so), she would report it to some authority, that authority would report it to some news agency, and before we knew it the game would be getting pilloried in Congress (or some subcommittee thereof), and in no time at all it would be banned and pulled from shelves.

So yeah, I figure no modern-combat-related game is going to include civilian NPCs. Perhaps it's some unwritten/unspoken rule (which I have all along simply been uanware of) in the game development community that no game ought to include characters which the player would not be fully justified to shoot in real life.

I took note of

posted in the "kill radius" thread. About midway through the video, half a dozen Marines are on the roof of a house in Fallujah, and from the inside the house come several voices chanting in unison -- in spite of the "rockets" fired at the building (the actual weapon used is never on screen, so I don't know what it was; either an AT4 or an M72 or a SMAW, I reckon) and the several grenades thrown into it, there were still insurgents lurking inside. I took note that the narrator says: "These might be desperate cries, but it could be a sign the house is booby-trapped." Now, I know virtually nothing of Arabic, but even I know that understood the insurgents' chanting to be -- no surprise -- "Allāhu akbar" (which means "God is great"). In other words, the men therein were not saying "please don't shoot" or anything like that. Come to think of it, it's a bit surprising that they started loudly chanting "Allāhu akbar", when keeping silent would have been kept the Marines guessing. Then again, evidently many of the insurgents gathered in Fallujah to die fighting.

[Field Marshal Blücher]

I still think FPS games and military "sims" still are well off the mark in terms of realism because no matter how much of a game takes place in a densely populated city from which the civilian populace has expressly not been evacuated, the player never encounters civilians in game. (I should say almost never, since, though I've never encoutered a civilian in any FPS or "tactical shooter" I've played, I admit I have played only a relative few such games.)

You are correct, I believe. I have encountered only one shooter with NPC civilians: the original Ghost Recon, in my opinion one of the greatest military shooters of all time. They weren't around very much, but when they were there, it was always a sort of gut-wrenching moment when you line them up in your crosshairs, and right before you pull the trigger, you say, "Oh $#!@, that's a civilian!" and avert firing just in time. Fortunately, I never failed to stop before I shot, but it makes you think about what the troops go through.

I honestly thought that was a really interesting game element and one that I would personally like to see in more military shooters, but I think the game would need a very strong element of "punish the player for killing the civilians." OGR had that (I think you'd lose the mission immediately if so much as one civilian died).

[dieseltaylor]

Straight from cinema to wood near you!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/8022946.stm

Jurors were played a scene from the British horror film Severance in which a character was shown tied to a tree. In the movie a man is shown throwing petrol over and setting light to his victim. Mr Khalil told the court that Simon suffered a fate inspired by that scene. The jury heard that the teenager was driven to remote woodland in Mr Chandler's car.

"He was initially assaulted," Mr Khalil said."He was bundled into a car, taken to a forest or wooded area. He was then tied to a tree with blue nylon roping. Petrol was poured on to him and into his throat. He was then set on fire whilst tied to that tree. The rope burned through. He was still alive. He stepped from the tree a short distance, still alight, and there he was to die."

The court was told Mr Clarke, of Elizabeth Way, had watched Severance about a year before Mr Everitt was killed.

"When Clarke watched that DVD he made a comment to this effect: 'Wouldn't it be wicked if you could actually do that to someone in real life?'," Mr Khalil said. The jury was told that the woman who watched it with Mr Clarke was "shocked" at the remark.

Its dangerous to give the simple-minded ideas it seems. Perhaps all that research on violence in the media is right!

[Dietrich]

Straight from cinema to wood near you!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/8022946.stm

Its dangerous to give the simple-minded ideas it seems. Perhaps all that research on violence in the media is right!

A simple reply would be to point out that gruesomely horrific things have been done to people since time immemorial, long before there were any media (in the traditional sense of the word). That said, the ancient Assyrians created bas-relief wall carvings depicting how the horrendous things they were infamous for doing to slaves and prisoners of war.

One thing that struck me as ironic: The news report's tag line said that the 17-year-old's murder was (italics mine) "based on a scene from a spoof horror film".

Have any of y'all ever heard of a would-be gruesome killing getting stopped by some daring citizen? Has anyone ever heard of an "active shooter" incident being brought to some sort of end by an armed citizen?

[Pak_43]

Its dangerous to give the simple-minded ideas it seems. Perhaps all that research on violence in the media is right!

The plural of anecdote is not data....

[gunnergoz]

Its all about responsibility.

The makers of violent tripe, be it on the internet or the media, release it and absolve themselves of any responsibility for how it impacts other people. All the makers are interested in is making money. People have to look out for themselves, in this philosophy.

Other people see things differently, figuring that we all have a mutual responsibility to one another to not make life more difficult than it already is. This philosophy concedes that there are persons who are ill and impressionable out in the real world and that certain experiences can impact such persons and encourage them to attempt to act out what they have witnessed. So under this latter philosophy, people oppose the making of gratuitously violent products arguing that such products have no redeeming social value other than profit for the individuals making them.

This dualism conforms to the two primary camps that humans invariably find themselves aligning with - the "rugged individualists" who place their own needs above all others and who think each man should survive upon his own merits, and the "altruists" who believe that a spirit of community and acting for the common good are what are most important to our survival as a civilized species.

[akd]

Have any of y'all ever heard of a would-be gruesome killing getting stopped by some daring citizen? Has anyone ever heard of an "active shooter" incident being brought to some sort of end by an armed citizen?

Yes. Do you mean have you ever heard of it being highly publicized in the media? Then no.

[Dietrich]

Yes. Do you mean have you ever heard of it being highly publicized in the media? Then no.

I meant at all. I myself have never heard of such an instance.

The most recent "active shooter" incident that I've heard about was the 2009 Pittsburgh police shootings, in which Richard Poplawski, wearing some sort of bulletproof vest and armed with an AK-type rifle, killed two policemen who arrived at his mother's home in response to a 911 call from the mother and then killed a third policemen as he tried to aid the first two. Similar though this may sound to the incident in Oakland last month (which also involved an AK-type weapon and resulting in the killing of four policemen), unlike Lovelle Mixon, Poplawski was not shot dead by police because when he actually got hit by police personnel -- no news report I've been able to find is anything but vague on the circumstances and extent of Poplawski's wound(s) -- he surrendered. While in police custody he stated that he had wished he had killed more cops and that he surrendered so as to be able to write a book in prison. (He's an avowed anti-Semitic white supremacist, and he has a stylized Nazi eagle tattoo on his upper chest which is partially visible in his mugshot.)

True, not infrequently (in the US, anyway) are active shooters shot dead by police -- if only because they, unlike Poplawski, do not surrender -- the reason why it's so rare for an armed citizen to stop an active shooter is, as far as I can tell, the same reason why police take aim at an active shooter and don't necessarily just shoot him till he falls down dead. (By way of contrast with the two incidents above, during the highly publicized North Hollywood shootout, in which both of the active shooters had full-auto-capable assault rifles and were wearing augmented bulletproof vests that were impervious to the 9mm pistols and 12-gauge shotguns wielded by the police personnel who confronted them at first, neither of the shooters were shot dead by police -- both were wounded; one killed himself with his pistol after being hit 11 times, and the other surrendered after being hit 29 times.) In short, even when facing a heavily armed and evidently amoral person who has killed unarmed bystanders and is continuing to do so, the typical person hesitates to take aim and shoot to kill, evidently because the fear of becoming guilty of killing someone is greater than the fear of allowing others to be murdered.

[Pak_43]

So under this latter philosophy, people oppose the making of gratuitously violent products arguing that such products have no redeeming social value other than profit for the individuals making them.

And I suppose the millions of people that enjoyed GTAIV (I'm assuming it falls under your definition of "gratuitously violent product") means it has "no redeeming social value", isn't entertainment a socially redeeming value?

If entertainment isn't a socially redeeming value then should we do away with films? or board games? Or, god forbid, books?

[gunnergoz]

And I suppose the millions of people that enjoyed GTAIV (I'm assuming it falls under your definition of "gratuitously violent product") means it has "no redeeming social value", isn't entertainment a socially redeeming value?

If entertainment isn't a socially redeeming value then should we do away with films? or board games? Or, god forbid, books?

So those who believe in "self reliance" and the primacy of the individual, enjoy playing a game where they can blow away other people...what a surprise. And no, I see no redeeming social value in games that promote gratuitous violence. These games don't even have a pretense about representing war...only crime. Where's the benefit to that?

On the other hand, if the games allowed the player to kill an innocent person(s), be captured, tried and executed, after which their copy of the game would no longer function, then that would perhaps have some educational value.

And I would argue that books, games and films that represent only gore and gratuitous, mindless violence, have no real social value. It's a shame that they are done at all, but there is no stopping those individuals who place their own benefit above that of society at large.

[Pak_43]

So those who believe in "self reliance" and the primacy of the individual, enjoy playing a game where they can blow away other people...what a surprise. And no, I see no redeeming social value in games that promote gratuitous violence. These games don't even have a pretense about representing war...only crime. Where's the benefit to that?

Because it's entertaining? Is this not a socially redeeming value?

I'd like to dig out some examples and see if you could you tell me if they have no socially redeeming value, as an exercise? Is that ok? I'm genuinely interested in this, I've tried to pick some stuff that I think you'll be familiar with but obviously that's my take on what might be popular...

Films...

Aliens

A Clockwork Orange

Angela's Ashes

Starship Troopers

Brokeback Mountain

Resevoir Dogs

Books...

Gullivers Travels

Dracula

Oranges Are Not The Only Fruit

Harry Potter (any one)

The Silence of the Lambs

Jaws

[dieseltaylor]

Pak43

I haven't read any of those books or seen any of those films so for me a fruitless list. I do have probably over 1000 books in house and about 15 out from the library at any time so its not like I cannot read.

Films are generally disappointing so I wait for them to arrive on TV - and then ignore the ones which will probably irritate me or lower my mood. I think that covers the films then : ) I have a theory that modern society is good at providing a daily dose of downers for all thinking people who understand news etc. Why one would wish to get further pissed by seeing a film God knows.

Now if the film is going to make me feel better - a comedy or rom-com then that is great. The brain reacts to good things with a nice dose of chemicals : )

BUT perhaps being entertaining is actually not a good bar to judge whether something is good or bad for society as a whole. I am curious whether the ancient sports of throwing Christians to the lions, or fights to the death between gladiators are also OK because they were entertaining.

I know some youths take great delight in having very powerful speaker systems in car so that they can drive around damaging their hearing - and possibly incidentally disturbing the peace of other people.

Here in the UK I will no doubt be required to pay a disability allowance at a future date for all the hearing impaired. Did you know that only France cottoned on to the damage the I-pod can do to hearing and demanded a limiter be fitted. Should society/govt have intervened or was the fact that people were being entertained and Apple making stonks of money be sufficient reason not to regulate. Is it just possible that people are not auditory doctors and unknowingly could damage their hearing irreparably - andd for some misguided reason they think Govt or the manufacturer are going to look out for them ....

If it entertains its' OK - 'fraid not.

[Pak_43]

Okies, no worries... have you played GTAIV?

[dieseltaylor]

No...... but Wikipedia is very thorough. I did play GTA2 I think it was.

It is interesting that throughout history the concept of a hero , a good guy has seemed to be fairly universal. Dealing with drugs , killing people, shagging prostitutes just does not seem a great role model for disaffected youth. They should look to people like G W Bush to see what a man can make of himself : )

[Pak_43]

I suspect Wiki is also pretty thorough on the list of films and books I put up, or at least thorough enough to form an opinion on?

[gunnergoz]

Because it's entertaining? Is this not a socially redeeming value?

I'd like to dig out some examples and see if you could you tell me if they have no socially redeeming value, as an exercise? Is that ok? I'm genuinely interested in this, I've tried to pick some stuff that I think you'll be familiar with but obviously that's my take on what might be popular...

Films...

Aliens

A Clockwork Orange

Angela's Ashes

Starship Troopers

Brokeback Mountain

Resevoir Dogs

Books...

Gullivers Travels

Dracula

Oranges Are Not The Only Fruit

Harry Potter (any one)

The Silence of the Lambs

Jaws

I've seen many of those movies and of the books read only Gulliver and Jaws. I have no idea about Angela's Ashes, Brokeback Mountain, Oranges are the Only Fruit, Harry Potter and Silence of the lamb since I've not seen/read them. I have heard of many of them and don't particularly know of them as being in the category of what I am describing.

I have a bone to pick with GTA and games or films that show violence or torture for shock value, without a real plot or story that is worth furthering but simply to expose the audience/player to the opportunity to experience gratuitous violence. That is my point. Adults can see and enjoy many things that have a lesson to teach, a moral to express or a worthwhile story to tell. The objection I have is in respect to those games or films in particular that have nothing to say except that crime is worthwhile, killing is fun, one can get away with impunity with crime and sadism, etc, etc.

I would exclude many books from this entirely, since the sort of people most warped by junk don't read, they watch TV or films or play games. Books are not the issue and I'm not espousing book burning or literary censorship.

If someone wants to make a game or film about torturing people, raping people or hurting children, does the fact that there is a (albeit twisted) petential audience for it, who "would be entertained by it", justify making it? What is the responsibility of a game/film maker to the public? Is their obligation only to their own need to make a profit? At what point is entertainment the holy grail? If the entertainment comes at the cost of worthwhile social values, then it should give the makers pause for thought.

[Pak_43]

I have a bone to pick with GTA and games or films that show violence or torture for shock value, without a real plot or story that is worth furthering but simply to expose the audience/player to the opportunity to experience gratuitous violence. That is my point.

And I would argue that GTAIV has a deep plot (as deep as any other video game anyway) and a genuine story to tell, it takes several days of playing to get from the beginning of the story to the end, on the way the character goes through a wide range of emotions including repentance, guilt, anger, love, sadness, jealousy etc. etc.

The objection I have is in respect to those games or films in particular that have nothing to say except that crime is worthwhile, killing is fun, one can get away with impunity with crime and sadism, etc, etc.

And Nico is filled with doubts about his actions throughout the whole game, he has several discussions with other characters about the war he has fought in and how he is seeking revenge for the murdering of his friends and comrades, how he feels his life is a complete mess and he just wants to exact revenge so he can move on and how he wants to build a better life for himself, it's all there in the story and the plot, how he is driven for a desire for revenge, regularly placed in an impossible position and forced to choose between the lesser of two evils...

If someone wants to make a game or film about torturing people, raping people or hurting children, does the fact that there is a (albeit twisted) petential audience for it, who "would be entertained by it", justify making it?

GTAIV is none of those things...

I have a bone to pick with GTA and games or films that show violence or torture for shock value,

one can get away with impunity with crime and sadism, etc, etc.

There is never any indication that showing this violence is for shock value in GTAIV, if you want to stand in a street an shoot people down in cold blood you can, that's the consequence of trying to create a realistic environment in which to place your game, but the consequence of this is a wanted level that forces you to evade the police to continue playing the game, evading the police is not a trivial exercise and regularly results in Nico being shot and having to restart the mission...

I strongly suspect you are a victim of the hype that the makers of the game actively sought to use to promote it...

I would exclude many books from this entirely, since the sort of people most warped by junk don't read, they watch TV or films or play games. Books are not the issue and I'm not espousing book burning or literary censorship

Not even books like this?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Chopper-Mark-Brandon-Read/dp/1904034144

[dieseltaylor]

Interesting thought. Make someone rich and famous relating his illegal acts. I have always had a distaste for the celebrity crim. I hope his wife and son are happy with a discreet profile.

You seem to think GTAIV , because the character is torn between which way to go killing is in some way OK because of this. Lets resolve a problem - kill someone. The media studies I have quoted which shows effects of media violence do exist - why not lets talk about them?

Simply saying I think its great game and I am OK; is not really a very deep debating point as to whether society is improved by screening/having available so much violence. Ok so it is tough to argue against several thousand studies but perhaps we junk them as being irrelevant to todays life style and that the effects - at only a 15% contribution are not worth considering a change in society.

God forbid what it would do to Hollywood and TV if theywere only allowed one murder per day as an average over a week say. Cripes we could have programs on gardening, art,reading!, live music, playing board games, life style improvements - starting with food and health would not be a bad idea. Political corruption another.

[gunnergoz]

What I perhaps am not being clear enough about is that I would like people to self-censor out of consideration for others. I am not saying that society or government censor everything - though there are a few things that should be and are (child porn sites, snuff films, just to name a few.)

I'm an idealist, clearly, but I've been that way all my life and am not about to change now.

I would never lend my name or assistance to a project that espoused gratuitous violence without social value. I would never willingly profit from any such thing. And its not that I couldn't use the dough. But I have values and they don't include promoting violence.

I will admit to never playing GTA...but you guys have written enough about that game, or other games that include torture and execution, for me to have a sense of what the games allow. And I think that if these games contain that sort of freedom for the players, they go too far.

I think individuals have the responsibility to think about the greater impact their works will have upon society. Money and profit already drive way too much of what people do in the world. What passes for entertainment is to me often just exploitation of our baser selves. And while there is certainly a segment of the population that can tolerate and be analytical about experiencing such products, there are also parts of the population that will be impacted very negatively by these products too.

All I can do is hope that, over time, people are educated and mature to the point that they lose interest in such products and the market for them diminishes. If there would be no profit, there would be no temptation to create them.

Unfortunately, one of the many negative by-products of modern culture is the widespread acceptance of gratuitous violence as normal and "entertaining." In that sense, the species is making little progress towards elevating itself above the base and self-destructive.

[Clavicula_Nox]

This game has lost it's publisher.

Ironically, it was developed with the support of the Marines who fought the battle with criticism coming from families of fallen Marines and people who disagree with a portrayal of a historical event.

[gunnergoz]

This game has lost it's publisher.

Ironically, it was developed with the support of the Marines who fought the battle with criticism coming from families of fallen Marines and people who disagree with a portrayal of a historical event.

If it was just a historical simulation of the ground combat, I would have no problem with it. Hopefully, non-combatants were not depicted. On the other hand, if the game depicted non-combatants and allowed a player to shoot them without having a really severe penalty for it, that wouldn't be right...lest the game become an Iraq version of GTA.

[Pak_43]

lest the game become an Iraq version of GTA.

Dude, you really need to play GTAIV, and let's just leave it at that...

[gunnergoz]

Dude, you really need to play GTAIV, and let's just leave it at that...

Is it not about criminals running around killing people and committing crimes? Or does the protagonist go around capturing criminals and helping others?

If it is so correct, why is the term "grand theft" in it?

It might help you to understand that I spent most of the past 30 years dealing directly with criminals and the aftereffects of their behavior; I have no tolerance for making criminals entertaining or examples for others to idolize or emulate.

[Dietrich]

If it was just a historical simulation of the ground combat, I would have no problem with it. Hopefully, non-combatants were not depicted. On the other hand, if the game depicted non-combatants and allowed a player to shoot them without having a really severe penalty for it, that wouldn't be right

If a soldier or a Marine started shooting (if not actually killing) each and every non-combatant he encountered, how long would it be before his sergeant or the platoon commander or the company CO or somebody ordered him out of the combat zone or put him in custody or something?

[gunnergoz]

If a soldier or a Marine started shooting (if not actually killing) each and every non-combatant he encountered, how long would it be before his sergeant or the platoon commander or the company CO or somebody ordered him out of the combat zone or put him in custody or something?

In real life? It depends upon if he was seen doing it and upon the frame of mind of the witnesses...if a soldier was within a squad or section where that was condoned, encouraged or even simply silently tolerated, he might get by with doing it for a long time.

But we are talking about a game, not real life - correct? I'm saying that, if its a game that permits the player to shoot non-combatants, there should be some negative effects that severely penalize the player so as to prevent the game from becoming a My Lai simulator.