Depiction of war in video games

[maturin 12]

@vilas Absolute majority of humans are violent. It was so in all times.

This is a myth.

Everyone should read this:

http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/hope_on_the_battlefield

The human race is no different from the people living on your side of the street. Very few of them are killers. Society and its institutions are, however, extremely good at creating reasons to kill.

Our volunteer military self-selects for the killers among us, just like the vultures of a failed state self-select.

And about PMC, aren't the majority of them ex-military anyways? Just soldiers that could or would not re-acclimate to civilian life.

Edited March 3, 2012 by maturin

[Serclaes 0]

And about PMC, aren't the majority of them ex-military anyways? Just soldiers that could or would not re-acclimate to civilian life.

Yes. Mostly highly trained ex special forces or in the halo of special forces, not the "regular" airborne trooper.

The KSK for example always had the problem that very few would stay long because the pay is so miserable (despite the increased pay for special forces). PMCs do less dangerous stuff, with less of the military/political bullshit for more money. It's a no brainer really.

And still you can choose for what you get paid for. So contrary to Vilas' belief, you can choose to remain integer and loyal to your homeland while fighting as PMC. You just do it for more money.

[kireta21 13]

Yes. Mostly highly trained ex special forces or in the halo of special forces, not the "regular" airborne trooper.

Sometimes, not mostly. You don't need "tier-one operator" to babysit workers, guard the gate, or just to make sure locals won't try to steal from you. Mostly those guys do same job as "normal" security, except with rifles instead of handguns and better pay of course. In fact when friend of mine, before joining French Foreign Legion, considered joining one British company (sorry, forgot name), all they did request was driving licence, no criminal background, and ANY kind of military service, beign conscript for one year was good enough.

People have some twisted view on PMCs work because when saomeone says "PMC" people think "Blackwater" and "Fallujah", since they don't know Blackwater's action during war often had little to do with what Private Millitary Companies are supposed to do.

Edited March 3, 2012 by boota

[Serclaes 0]

Yea they might get hired for that. Just that those tier one guys have a little more diverse offers. Like train police/armed forces, liberate Arulco etc. and that's where the money is made. :)

[Clarkey1 10]

Mostly those guys do same job as "normal" security, except with rifles instead of handguns and better pay of course.

I think that's pretty spot on. From what I understand they're mostly security for facilities and high value individuals. Apparently some guys can get paid up to $3000 a week. Then there's the civilian contractors, people who don't require any military background and get jobs like driving supplies from A to B and the US military has even outsourced things like laundry and cooking jobs to private companies at times. Check out the documentaries "Shadow Company" and "Iraq For Sale: The War Profiteers", pretty interesting.

Yea they might get hired for that. Just that those tier one guys have a little more diverse offers. Like train police/armed forces, liberate Arulco etc. and that's where the money is made.

Hah, that's a good point (see: "Executive Outcomes")

Something I'd find interesting to know about "W" is if he became and infantryman because he was a 'bastard' or being an infantryman made him one. I assume the latter because of all the talk of FNG's being more suitable to be "poster boys" for the Army. In any case it would be good to see less 'white knight' heroes in games that depict war, and more of these anti-hero 'bastard' types for a change. So hopefully more guys like him speak out about this (I can't really see why they'd give a shit what characters in video games act like or how much the gameplay depicts real life combat but who knows, the guys gotta do something in his spare time.) and with any luck FPS game devs might try to gear their games more towards realism (visually and contextually) instead of just blindly claiming it's realistic for sales. I remember someone saying somewhere in the forums (in a poll i think) that if your average FPS is about 0/10 in terms of realism then ArmA would be about a 3/10. Well considering it's a game based off a milsim this might be true and the remaining 7 could simply be the mental and physical stress of real combat but I'll probably never know personally so here's hoping ArmA continues to strive for realism and that Cpt. Scott Miller might be a little bit of a "bastard" (Or at least Nikos Panagopoulos). :)

[kireta21 13]

Ironically only war FPS that put anti-hero on player's side (and even allowed player to become one) was Call of Duty 5. In that game we see our squad leader, Reznov executing POWs, and burning them alive with molotovs. And before latter asking if player want to kill them himself, if player refuse, Reznov is visibly disappointed. It's quite clear this war is for him nothing but vengance and he wants to kill as many as he can before it ends.

In fact, I can't really remember other war FPS even close as brutal as World at War.

[Tonci87 163]

Ironically only war FPS that put anti-hero on player's side (and even allowed player to become one) was Call of Duty 5. In that game we see our squad leader, Reznov executing POWs, and burning them alive with molotovs. And before latter asking if player want to kill them himself, if player refuse, Reznov is visibly disappointed. It's quite clear this war is for him nothing but vengance and he wants to kill as many as he can before it ends.

In fact, I can't really remember other war FPS even close as brutal as World at War.

True, Reznov was a complete psycho

[onlyrazor 11]

True, Reznov was a complete psycho

You're a monster, Zorg Reznov. - I know.

[spooky lynx 73]

Only a violent sociopath would play this game.

Well... It seems that I'm one of them (seeing what missions I often play in ArmA).

[GRS 10]

But are they sociopaths or just people that do different things than other people? What makes normal people "normal"? Maybe the non-violent ones are the weird ones.

Ok, I'll stop now. :D

[Serclaes 0]

What does violent mean anyways? Is that the same as non peaceful? :P

[DrunkenVeteran 10]

If you look at how basic training, bootcamp looks in the US, it is no surprise to see people like this W person. They are honest, they don´t train soldiers to be nice and help build kindergartens, they train soldiers to most effectively destroy other human beings.

Yes and No. Being a combat veteran myself, I can say that yes specific (Military Occupation Specialties) MOS's are trained this way, other's no. In fact about 95% no. Now I'm talking basic training or "Bootcamp". Continuation schools are different.

I mean the ultimate thing you have to realize in this thread is opinions are like Asshole's, everyone has one and they all stink. I can sit here and talk all day about SF but the matter of the fact is, I have no experience in SF as I am not a 18* qualified Soldier.

[seba1976 98]

Like I said, I'm shocked that nobody see that 'W' article as bogus.

[onlyrazor 11]

Like I said, I'm shocked that nobody see that 'W' article as bogus.

If people like what they read, they just assume it's real. And even if it isn't, it still raises some valid points.

[instagoat 133]

Yes and No. Being a combat veteran myself, I can say that yes specific (Military Occupation Specialties) MOS's are trained this way, other's no. In fact about 95% no. Now I'm talking basic training or "Bootcamp". Continuation schools are different.

I mean the ultimate thing you have to realize in this thread is opinions are like Asshole's, everyone has one and they all stink. I can sit here and talk all day about SF but the matter of the fact is, I have no experience in SF as I am not a 18* qualified Soldier.

For the opinions, it´s true. As far as military experience goes, many here probably don´t have any, me included. I think I wouldn´t have been cut out for a soldier, though I think it might have helped me get certain parts of my life in line. But you can still form informed opinions about something, even if you weren´t part of something: having insight from people actually within the things you talk about helps a lot though.

It is probably too much to say that -everyone- in the military is trained to be this way. People are also very different from each other, and everyone will be moved and affected slightly differently by what they are taught in basic and advanced training, and by what they experience when actually on duty or deployed. But that doesn´t change that fact that (as I believe) it takes a certain kind of person to inflict deadly violence on other people, especially when coming face to face with them as infantrymen do in the urban scenarios our western militaries have experienced in the past ten years.

[DrunkenVeteran 10]

But that doesn´t change that fact that (as I believe) it takes a certain kind of person to inflict deadly violence on other people, especially when coming face to face with them as infantrymen do in the urban scenarios our western militaries have experienced in the past ten years.

Agreed, and this is coming from a Airborne Infantry Soldier.

[PELHAM 10]

But are they sociopaths or just people that do different things than other people? What makes normal people "normal"? Maybe the non-violent ones are the weird ones.

Ok, I'll stop now. :D

My father and uncles fought in a very bloody civil war and show no signs of battle stress or PSD. My grandfather was a butcher and during the summer holidays from high school my father and uncles got jobs in a slaughter house. They would dispatch animals with a captive bolt pistol, slit their throats, stomachs and skin them. In battle my father told me he was able to deal with severely wounded people (guts hanging out and screaming) because of that experience. Other men would run away and break down because they had led more comfortable lives. Similarly they could kill without emotion, it was no different to them.

Completely unrelated to that, although I grew up during a war in a 3rd world country and have seen some gruesome shit, I have always loved the outdoors, fishing and hunting and have killed my fair share. After school I was on a outdoor course with someone who was thinking of joining the marines. He caught a fish and proceeded to run up and down the shore babbling in a panic because he didn't know how to kill it and didn't have the stomach for it. I had to do it for him. That bothered me tremendously, how was the poor fool supposed to kill a man when he was unable to kill a fish to eat? (yeah I had to gut it and cook it for him as well) He also suffered from claustrophobia in his sleeping bag. We were woken up one night with his terrified screams when the cord he had attached to the sleeping bag zipper for emergencies became wrapped around his neck after he rolled over several times. The other potential military candidates were not far removed from this particular asshole. My confidence in my new countries defence has never been 100% since this and other encounters. Just watch some of them on TV, it's pitiful.

It's all down to lifestyle and experience. That comical Taliban in turban and dish-dash has a lifetimes experience of death, illness and suffering, killing animals for food etc. How does your average urban European/American soldier stack up to that? Train and equip them equally and we would lose. It's not a rifle that kills, it's the hard heart behind the rifle. You might call them sociopaths, some of them might be, most just have the balls and life experience to get the job done.

[ProfTournesol 956]

Completely unrelated to that, although I grew up during a war in a 3rd world country and have seen some gruesome shit

Southern Rhodesia ?

[PELHAM 10]

Southern Rhodesia ?

Feel free to speculate on that, I will not confirm or deny anything relating to names or locations for personal reasons. Lets just say, part of me will always remain, green, white and green :rolleyes:.

[kireta21 13]

It's all down to lifestyle and experience. That comical Taliban in turban and dish-dash has a lifetimes experience of death, illness and suffering, killing animals for food etc. How does your average urban European/American soldier stack up to that? Train and equip them equally and we would lose. It's not a rifle that kills, it's the hard heart behind the rifle. You might call them sociopaths, some of them might be, most just have the balls and life experience to get the job done.

Military training is not only about weapons and tactics, it's also fair dose of brainwash. Beign a farmboy myself I'm used to kill animals, including cute puppies but I would never kill any for fun. But while in army I really wanted to kill someone. Beign afraid of heights from kid, my mind was almost getting BSoD when paradroping for the first time. And even if almost every time I was close to shit myself I would do as I'm told, because orders were like words of God himself for me.

[DrunkenVeteran 10]

Beign afraid of heights from kid, my mind was almost getting BSoD when paradroping for the first time.

Every jump was a "night jump" eh?

[seba1976 98]

My father and uncles fought in a very bloody civil war and show no signs of battle stress or PSD. My grandfather was a butcher and during the summer holidays from high school my father and uncles got jobs in a slaughter house. They would dispatch animals with a captive bolt pistol, slit their throats, stomachs and skin them. In battle my father told me he was able to deal with severely wounded people (guts hanging out and screaming) because of that experience. Other men would run away and break down because they had led more comfortable lives. Similarly they could kill without emotion, it was no different to them.

Completely unrelated to that, although I grew up during a war in a 3rd world country and have seen some gruesome shit, I have always loved the outdoors, fishing and hunting and have killed my fair share. After school I was on a outdoor course with someone who was thinking of joining the marines. He caught a fish and proceeded to run up and down the shore babbling in a panic because he didn't know how to kill it and didn't have the stomach for it. I had to do it for him. That bothered me tremendously, how was the poor fool supposed to kill a man when he was unable to kill a fish to eat? (yeah I had to gut it and cook it for him as well) He also suffered from claustrophobia in his sleeping bag. We were woken up one night with his terrified screams when the cord he had attached to the sleeping bag zipper for emergencies became wrapped around his neck after he rolled over several times. The other potential military candidates were not far removed from this particular asshole. My confidence in my new countries defence has never been 100% since this and other encounters. Just watch some of them on TV, it's pitiful.

It's all down to lifestyle and experience. That comical Taliban in turban and dish-dash has a lifetimes experience of death, illness and suffering, killing animals for food etc. How does your average urban European/American soldier stack up to that? Train and equip them equally and we would lose. It's not a rifle that kills, it's the hard heart behind the rifle. You might call them sociopaths, some of them might be, most just have the balls and life experience to get the job done.

That's a great story you got there. At some point in my life I stopped blaming any killing simply because I had no more intellectual reasons to condemn it. It all came down to whether you can o cannot do it, in an emotional level. It's probably a question of "empathy". You and your relatives, and the Taliban you mention, never had (or loose) any form of empathy. People living in rural areas almost always show low levels of empathy, when compared to people living in cities, where you usually have little to no need to kill something yourself, to survive or entertain.

Edited March 4, 2012 by seba1976

[PELHAM 10]

That's a great story you got there. At some point in my life I stopped blaming any killing simply because I had no more intellectual reasons to condemn it. It all came down to whether you can o cannot do it, in an emotional level. It's probably a question of "empathy". You and your relatives, and the Taliban you mention, never had (or loose) any form of empathy. People living in rural areas almost always show low levels of empathy, when compared to people living in cities, where you usually have little to no need to kill something yourself, to survive or entertain.

So you're saying those particular groups don't have any empathy? Obviously not true, and as you don't know the above you can't prove it either. What they do have is better understanding of life and death and how the world works. People living in cities have very little experience of anything, that's why their opinions often don't make any logical sense.

Edited March 5, 2012 by PELHAM

[seba1976 98]

So you're saying those particular groups don't have any empathy? Obviously not true, and as you don't know the above you can't prove it either. What they do have is better understanding of life and death and how the world works. People living in cities have very little experience of anything, that's why their opinions often don't make any logical sense.

Oh, but I'm not being judgmental at all, by saying they show lower levels of empathy. Don't assume that idea, just because it's normal that whatever people says tend to be, in fact, part of a judgmental attitude towards others.

To clarify, I don't know, if feeling more empathy, is better than the opposite. But it stands on its own, that the taliban able to use an IED, feels no empathy for the American troops he's going to blow off. They are unable to feel any compassion for the men they are dismembering, and the fact that an intellectual reason is enough to move them to carry out such actions (which are probably only one of the smallest atrocities they do) is proof enough that empathy is not strong on their systems. And that's of course also true for the American soldiers, when they commit some atrocity. An effective soldier in battle cannot be empathic.

People in rural areas have a better understanding of what it's needed to living in rural areas, and people in the cities have a better understanding of what it's needed to living in the cities. No need to bring about the whole subject of Life into the picture. Or to insult anyone.

That being said, not being pressed by the obvious necessity to kill, urban population tend to develop greater degrees of empathy and compassion (and please don't infer from that statement, that people in the cities are "better" that the people in your story, that's not what I meant.)

[PELHAM 10]

To clarify, I don't know, if feeling more empathy, is better than the opposite. But it stands on its own, that the taliban able to use an IED, feels no empathy for the American troops he's going to blow off. They are unable to feel any compassion for the men they are dismembering, and the fact that an intellectual reason is enough to move them to carry out such actions (which are probably only one of the smallest atrocities they do) is proof enough that empathy is not strong on their systems. And that's of course also true for the American soldiers, when they commit some atrocity. An effective soldier in battle cannot be empathic.

No, no, it doesn't stand on it's own.

Thats a rather simplistic view of a very complex psychological situation that ignores other emotional effects such as fear, anger, disgust, hate or revenge. If you hate the enemy or desire revenge you plant an IED anyway, despite your feelings of empathy, as the emotional perspective is changed. It doesn't mean they have no empathy or less empathy, they know exactly what damage an IED causes. They may be empathising more with a deceased or injured colleague or themselves (self pity) than the intended victim? Hatred, contempt and revenge are long-lasting emotions, more like a temporary attitude or disposition than a temporary emotional state. Does this make them more dominant than empathy? I believe so.

Consider also physical stimuli such as fatigue, pain, hunger and stress. Might these induce self pity leading to a strong desire for self preservation, e.g. "better him than me"? Can empathy win in that situation?

What about long lasting psychological conditioning such as military, political or religious instruction? If you are conditioned to believe the enemy deserve death, then add in the above complex battlefield stimuli, is empathy temporarily reduced even further?

I say temporary because empathy can drive people nuts later. The return of empathy produces feelings of guilt and regret.

Edited March 7, 2012 by PELHAM