I took a lot of heat from game addicts who think that there is nothing wrong with them
Whoa, there, Tex, who you calling a 'game addict?' As I recall, you took heat from a lot of people, and got support from a lot of people, too. I don't remember anyone who sounded like a serious gamer, though. If you're interested, we discussed the Left Behind game a while back here.
It's just my quick opinion, I'll read your post again to confirm it, that your connection between an extreme xtian-based video game that does cross a certain line between the gameworld and reality, the desire for more lethal weaponry in combat, and "a rich game-playing Saudi kid named Osama" is kinda weak. And while the seemingly indescriminate killing of civilians is especially heinous, you can't blame video games for it. This carnage has been happening since man stood erect, looked down, and decided that the world revolved around his dick; and he still doesn't care, after all these millenia, who he has to kill to prove it.
Posted by iamcoyote at June 8, 2006 06:29 PMYou lost me somewhere when the discussion turned from a lousy right-wing FPS game to the lethality or lack of in the 5.56mm round.
But, 2 things:
#1 - That 'Left Behind' game is likely going to have more stories and blog entires written about it then sales.
#2 - In regards to this point:
In the chaos of war, the more bullets the better, he says, because bursts of automatic fire beat one big bullet at a time.
He is absolutely right. Better for the troops to have 300+ rnds of lighter ammo then 100 rounds of heavier ammo. And the reason - 2 words:
Suppressing Fire.
Suppressive fire may be either aimed (at a specific enemy soldier, group of soldiers, or vehicle) or unaimed (for example, at a building or treeline where enemy soldiers are suspected to be hiding.) To be effective, suppressive fire must be relatively continuous and high in volume. Suppression of enemy fire is vital during troop movement especially in tactical situations such as an attack on an enemy position.
* The defenders hold a position, such as a building or trench line, perhaps reinforced with sandbags, landmines, barbed wire or other obstacles.
* The defenders have a clear field of fire, so the attacking force has very few places to take cover.
* The attacking force has a group of soldiers "lay down" suppressive fire on the defenders, in order to induce the defenders to take cover and minimize their return fire.
* Under the cover of suppressive fire, a second group of attacking troops advances toward the defenders' position, then stops to lay down suppressive fire in their turn while the first group advances.
* The process repeats as needed, with each attacking group alternating roles (advancing or laying down suppressive fire) until they can attack the defenders at close quarters.
So, armed with more 5.56 rounds means that troops are more able to make use of fire suppression without running out of ammo. And having bullets is > then not having bullets.
5.56 rounds are also used because they were adopted as the official 'NATO' round, so all NATO forces use 5.56 ammo, so any switch away from it would sadly come slowly as a result.
Oh, I learned all that in video games, though I borrowed that text from Wikipedia. ;)
Posted by Siberian at June 8, 2006 06:51 PMSiberian, good stuff, you always have to factor in suppressing fire if all your doing is counting the number of bullets. Wiki's the best, no doubt about it.
All I know is, my son coulda planned the Iraq war better than Rummy did as a result of video games, but, to tell the truth, he has no interest in actually going out and killing people.
Posted by iamcoyote at June 8, 2006 07:04 PMPessimist, you won't necessarily remember, but I agreed with you. In fact, one example I gave was the hunting down and killing of liberals. In many ways this type of video games gives credence to their hatreds and prejudices. However, more importantly, what kind of society have we become that slaughtering humans in video games, people whom you may not agree with, has become a great way to have fun and pass the time of day? Again, with freedom comes responsibility, and I personally don't think people who create and sell these videos are acting in a responsible manner. If you want to make money, I guess appealing to human prejudices is a great way to do it. How sick.
Posted by Judith at June 8, 2006 07:36 PMThe Marine report about the relative stopping power of different ammunition would be more impressive if the AK-47 actually used 7.62 nn ammo. (A later version did, but not the AK-47.)
Posted by jwrjr at June 8, 2006 08:28 PMCan I please get an xtian-based game where I can nail fundamentalist christians to a cross and line I-70 with them? Please!? They could have a thing where the male ministers are having sex with their male paritioners -just as they do in real life, then bitch-slap their wives for talking back. Then I could nail them to a cross as they would yell about being persecuted. Now that sounds like a fun video game!
Posted by phidipides at June 8, 2006 09:17 PMI am not in any way in favor of censorship. I agree that there are many offensive video games. I agree that many of them foster violent tendencies in our children -- much the same way our movies, our television, and some of our music does today.
But the problem here, Pessimist, is that these are all symptoms of the serious problems with American cultures. Materialism. Ethnocentrism. Hatred. Bigotry. Outlets for misplaced aggression.
The fact that our society doesn't give a flip about 30K+ dead Iraqi's but cares very deeply and have their ego's invested in the outcome of the final vote over who wins "American Idol" says the same thing about Americans as the increasing interest in over-the-top video games. Our nation is notoriously self-absorbed and out of touch with the struggles of humanity facing people all over the globe. I doubt Somali families have much time left over at the end of their day to worry about what video game their children are playing. They're too busy trying to find clean drinking water and food.
The answer isn't censorship. Progressive forces in society need to work to limit American materialism. Reign in Corporate power. Champion humanism over materialism and bigotry. Treat the people rather than the symptoms.
Posted by Tampa Student at June 8, 2006 09:25 PMHowever, more importantly, what kind of society have we become that slaughtering humans in video games, people whom you may not agree with, has become a great way to have fun and pass the time of day?
A better one then many civilizations in the past.
Romans threw people they didn't agree with (Christians) to the lions for sport.
Rome and the middle ages showed frequent examples of death sports - fights by slaves or soldiers to the death for the amusement of others.
And then there is always 'honor' duels to the death which even have occured early in this countries history.
So the real question is, what kind of society have we become that we have elimated this past forms of barbaric entertainment and one of the only forms we have left that is similar involves the slaughter of virtual humans in video games. I'd say we're doing better.
Posted by Siberian at June 9, 2006 05:22 AMAll very worthy goals, Tampa S.
But I suspect they can only be accomplished by the youth of America expliciting rejecting those materialist values, because every more senior generation has been fatally tainted by them. It's literally all they know; all they can conceive; all they want to imagine.
Most Americans will fight tooth and nail for their continued "right" to gorge themselves at the shit-trough of absurd excess "consumption", with the expectation that the shit-trough will always increase in size and stink. Once that mindset is in place, the battle is pretty tough.
The old hippies might be our only allies in the struggle against toxic materialism, and plenty of them are long since compromised. But the only answer is to get 'em while they're young.
Just as the students are leading the charge against unregulated capitalism in France, we look to our youth to lead us.
Posted by euzoius at June 9, 2006 05:36 AMMy son plays a few of those miltary games. He loves them. I go between being scared to death and feeling guilty about what a bad parent I am and figuring that he's at the age when it's good for him to feel like he has some control over his uncertain environment and so I'm not history's greatest monster. I wish he'd be more into the puzzle games though. I could rationalize them away much more easily.
Posted by eRobin at June 9, 2006 06:08 AMJudith: "slaughtering humans in video games"
We fight them over there,(in video), so we don't have to fight them here.(at my front door)
Posted by TIKI AL at June 9, 2006 09:02 AM
It's interesting how liberals pride themselves
on being pro-science and pro-reality. This is
certainly the case with evolution and global
warming. Issues where supporting the science
doesn't really come with a price (other than
buying a car with good mileage).
On the other hand, all the scientific studies
showing the link between violent video games
and violent behavior, and between TV and all
sorts of social ills are ignored. Liberals
don't want to take responsibility for their
kids and ban violent video games and/or TV.
Nor do they want to give either up themselves.
It's so much easier to just look down noses
at the fundies and their anti-science outlook.
Here's an interesting link from Science Daily:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/10/051012082710.htm
"In a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) study, 13 male research participants were observed playing a latest-generation violent video game. Each participant's game play was recorded and content analyzed on a frame-by-frame basis."
"There is a causal link between playing the first-person shooting game in our experiment and brain-activity pattern that are considered as characteristic for aggressive cognitions and affects,"