Our Properties: Gamasutra GameCareerGuide IndieGames Indie Royale GDC IGF Game Developer Magazine GAO
My Message close
Latest News
spacer View All spacer
 
February 9, 2012
 
Analyst questions validity of unusual January NPD results [2]
 
DICE 2012: Blizzard's Pearce on World Of Warcraft's launch hangover
 
DICE 2012: Insomniac's Price on Quality Of Life, ditching the 'Loser' badge
spacer
Latest Features
spacer View All spacer
 
February 9, 2012
 
arrow Principles of an Indie Game Bottom Feeder [14]
 
arrow Postmortem: CyberConnect 2's Solatorobo: Red the Hunter [1]
 
arrow Jerked Around by the Magic Circle - Clearing the Air Ten Years Later [37]
spacer
Latest Jobs
spacer View All     Post a Job     RSS spacer
 
February 9, 2012
 
Airtight Games
Art Director
 
Telltale Games
Core Technology - Senior Systems Engineer
 
High 5 Games
Technical Artist
 
XEOPlay Inc
Game Developer (Mobile)
 
Kabam
Lead Software Engineer - Flash
 
Kabam
Lead Software Engineer-Ruby
spacer
Blogs

  When Game Violence Forces Us To Think
by Tom Allins on 07/23/09 02:46:00 pm   Featured Blogs
4 comments Share on Twitter Share on Facebook RSS
 
 
  Posted 07/23/09 02:46:00 pm
 

[this is a repost of my original gameranting post]

 We are all used at seeing violence in games, it's fun and should be harmless since we are only killing of virtual enemies who do deserve their death.  But sometimes game violence can hit us square in the face, case in point the Longbow flight simulator released shortly after the first gulf war.

Longbow, developed by Jane's Combat Simulations, puts the player in the cockpit of the AH-64 Apache helicopter during the first Gulf War.  Many of the missions involve night flights attacking radar posts and command centers.  Usually these targets are protected by anti aircraft missiles and soldiers.  Hellfire (laser guided missiles) and unguided rockets are ideal for destroying bunkers, tanks and radar dishes, but a bit expensive to kill Iraqi soldiers, thus  the 30 mm canon becomes the weapon of choice to dispatch these infantry men. 

During the night the player can only see the infantry men through a heat seeking camera.  The image is displayed in black and white one of the cockpit screen (in the game the player can zoom in on these screens).  As the player pulls the trigger the muffled sounds of the canon revibrate through the virtual cockpit.  To the player it seems almost to be real.

Then the first gulf war documentaries were released.  During the war itself we saw many footages of laser guided bombs hitting bridges and bunkers.  Each time the military promised us that this was a surgical war and no innocent people got hurt.  But some of the documentary footage showed shocking imagery, which looked very familiar to flight sim players.

This footage came from the gun cameras of a Apache helicopters during the first night of the war.  In black and white the outlines of an Iraqi radar post are shown.  Superimposed on the radar is a caret, indicating that the Apache gunner is designating the target with his laser.  Moments later we hear the whoosh of hellfire missiles leaving their hard points towards the marked target.  Few seconds pass as the missiles fly through the air, then the radar disappears in a (black and white) plume of flames. 

As soon as the radar dish explodes small stick figures emerge from nearby tents.  The Apache pilot moves his gunship closer (but still out of range of the enemy gunners) and the stick figures turn out to be Iraqi soldiers. 

Cross hairs swing over one soldier, there's the muffled sound of the onboard canon and the soldier disappears in a plume of flames, sand and blood.  Nearby soldiers drop to the ground.  But with their night camera's nothing can escape the Apaches.  A cross hair moves over to the next soldier, again the gun rumbles and a second soldier meets his end.

Personally the gun camera footage shocked me. Not because its violence and the execution of Iraqi soldiers but because the developers of the longbow simulation had perfectly simulated such footage.  Besides the lower graphics, there was no difference between in game footage and these real gun camera shots.  Suddenly I could no longer claim longbow to be a fancy game.  What I did in the game, other people did in real life.

Looking back I wondered why the violence in the longbow game shocked me, while I happily dispatch people in GTAIV.  I never have run over a pedestrian, violently beat a mean to death or watched such acts on television. 

Yet I saw three Iraqi soldiers been torn apart by 30mm shells.  They were not killed in a fair fight, they were executed.  If I can do the same thing in the virtual world, I am then not the same cold blooded killer like that helicopter pilot?

 
 
Comments

Ian Morrison
profile image
Isn't the point kind of moot? You reacted viscerally to the real imagery but passively to the stuff you knew was fake. Looks to me like you've successfully distinguished between fantasy and reality to me... if those live people on the screen didn't mean more to you than the 3d models on your computer screen, THEN I might be inclined to concede the point.

I've seen footage of people dying to gunfire, and been repulsed and sickened by it. Yet I regularily play violent FPS games now just as I did before without those same reactions. The key thing here is that what sickened me before wasn't the specific pattern of images and sounds that constituted the event, it was the knowledge that a living, breathing human being had just met their end.

Jeff Beaudoin
profile image
Ian is right on.

Additionally, if you expect war to be a series of fair fights, then you need to reconsider those expectations. Engaging in a war where you are on equal footing with your enemy isn't laudable, it is idiotic and counterproductive.

Condemning the helicopter pilot for killing infantry from the air is naive.

Lance Rund
profile image
That's one of the differences between games and "real" war. You don't want a "fair fight" in a real war; you don't want a "challenge". You want overwhelming odds, you want the enemy to never know what hit 'em, you can't be in a position to worry too much about whether it's unpleasant to be on the receiving end.

Battlefield morality is a luxury reserved for the winner... and for video games.

Now, if someone wanted to take an RTS and somehow quantify the "humanitarian" quotient of a player's actions (taking into account collateral damage, the burden of expense imposed upon the player's nation by battlefield choices, tradeoffs between actions which minimize YOUR casualties while maximizing the enemy's casualties, the effects of battlefield choices on post-war reconstruction, whether you take into account the sensibilities of your allies or neutrals at the expense of your own casualties, etc.) I'd be all over that. It would have to be done without an "agenda" for it to ring true, it would have to take into account the balance between victory and honor (is it better to lose honorably or win dishonorably in a high-stakes war? Is keeping the national language of France something other than German worth half a million American casualties? Is intercepting the release of weaponized brucellosis in one of your major cities worth abandoning Geneva Convention principles?).

But it could be done.

John Petersen
profile image
You might be already, but in general, no. However, it is a form of conditioning.


none
 
Comment:
 




 
UBM Techweb
Game Network
Game Developers Conference | GDC Europe | GDC Online | GDC China | Gamasutra | Game Developer Magazine | Game Advertising Online
Game Career Guide | Independent Games Festival | Indie Royale | IndieGames

Other UBM TechWeb Networks
Business Technology | Business Technology Events | Telecommunications & Communications Providers

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Contact Us | Copyright © UBM TechWeb, All Rights Reserved.