Video Game Reality versus an Actual Battlefield

[Sukerkin]

I normally don't like to post links to combat footage as it strikes me as a touch on the ghoulish side. But in this case, as far as I know, no one got hit or killed and it is an excellent illustration of just how confused a real engagement can be and how, even when distances are short, telling where friend and foe are becomes a real challenge:

[yt]bH9J5CbDBzs[/yt]

 

[Sukerkin]

Another interesting sequence of footage; this time a news team with a British unit:

[yt]FFo6z3yAp5I[/yt]

 

[Sukerkin]

Hmm, I see plenty of views but no comments.

What I am trying to stimulate here is a discourse on the difference between the way that videos games portray armed conflict and the way it really is. I particularly would like to hear opinions from those who have "seen the elephant" as they are the ones who can enlighten we sofa-warriors best.

 

[jks9199]

Hmm, I see plenty of views but no comments.

What I am trying to stimulate here is a discourse on the difference between the way that videos games portray armed conflict and the way it really is. I particularly would like to hear opinions from those who have "seen the elephant" as they are the ones who can enlighten we sofa-warriors best.

I can't say... I don't play that sort of video game, and the "combat" I've seen is light years different from military combat. At least so far, and I hope the day never comes when we are more comparable.

 

[Jenna]

I am a sofa-warrior-spectator and but to me the depictions are wonderfully graphic and certainly addictive in plot and entrancing in their portrayal of environment. I can only think it would not be a commercial success to portray the realism of the true terror of actual combat.

The sofa-warrior-spectator-cynic in me often wonders if these is any connection between games in this genre and a desire encouraged in us for the visual aspects of global combat (television, cinema and other more visceral and graphic games)? I wonder is it indurating a generation; adjusting us to an acceptance of the righteousness of war? Or maybe they are just games.

 

[Cyriacus]

War themed games are just a theme. Some games come pretty close to the real thing.
But theyre not as popular as the arcadey sorts, because for most people, theyre not playing War Games because of War. Its just a setting in which to conduct gunplay, and one that works well in those types of games.

I am a sofa-warrior-spectator and but to me the depictions are wonderfully graphic and certainly addictive in plot and entrancing in their portrayal of environment. I can only think it would not be a commercial success to portray the realism of the true terror of actual combat.

The sofa-warrior-spectator-cynic in me often wonders if these is any connection between games in this genre and a desire encouraged in us for the visual aspects of global combat (television, cinema and other more visceral and graphic games)? I wonder is it indurating a generation; adjusting us to an acceptance of the righteousness of war? Or maybe they are just games.

People have had a thing for violent media long before there were games. It isnt some kind of breeding acceptance thing, its simply the fact that what sells will multiply. When platformers back in the 80s and 90s were popular, most games were platformers. When futuristic games were popular, more were made. What sells with have more of it made, it isnt significant.

In fact, a Game was being made with the intent of being horror-of-war themed. It was discontinued for its themes.
Plus, it wasnt very popular in its production, since they werent really offering much.
Why?
Because most of the time, what few games will let you have 1-2k meter away firefights that last up to an hour between just a dozen or so guys, in which you spend half the time trying to figure out where the heck the other people are, and if this isnt some kind of deranged friendly fire incident or not, fit into such a small audience *by comparison* to the arcadey shootemups.

Its kinda like Sports.
Ill name one random example: Madden.
Madden is popular.
They said that in the next installment of it, Players could be sidelined due to injuries.
This caused a small outcry about the damage of realism in games.
Meanwhile, Jonahs Rugby Challenge and Backbreaker have a denizen times more realistic injuries, that can end players (When im saying players here, i dont mean humans, by the way. I mean ingame players) careers. No outcry. Because it isnt in the spotlight.


The point in getting at, is that the disconnect is only present if you look for it. Search for the connect, and Youll find it to a reasonable point. About as reasonable as the people who take car racing games, and set up actual car dashes to play them off whilst comparing them to actual driving. Its not the same, but VR hasnt been invented yet, and only so much is actually possible.