MW2 opens with something very controversial.

[JM]

Sounds like you missed the point of Defcon, which is supposed to be the horror of abstracting out the deaths of billions. The entire point is displayed in the dissonance between the clean modern interface and the reality of billions of lives being vaporized. The dissonance was the point. You are correct though in pointing out that this scene is intended to be very visceral, and make you feel the horror in a very personal and tangible sense as opposed to the abstract horror of defcon. They are worlds apart, but that's kind of the point.

That was the atmosphere they were trying to create, but it wasn't the point of Defcon, which was meant to be a fun strategy game involving multiple players... :)

[Kael]

I think that you might be mixing up the idea of something being "wrong" and the idea of something being "good." In your example, you consider the scene to be "not good" - not wrong. Things that are wrong are things that people should not be allowed to do. Things that are good are things that people should do. Things that are not good are not things that people should do but are also not things that people should be prevented from doing (Don't Do What Donny Don't Does). The original problem is that individuals referred to the scene as "wrong," which inherently implies that it ought not to exist because of its content.

If the contention is that the scene is "not good," then I probably agree. I mean, I'm not bloody likely to play the game in the first place because I'm one of those square brained chodes that didn't enjoy the first one (or the fourth one, by the original numbering scheme) because I felt like I was being pushed around a bunch of scenery and not directing my own experience. I think that the justifications for the scene that I've heard sound like bad writing even beyond the 24 scale, because, hell, at least in those situations Jack Bauer isn't taking part in something clearly illegal that he's supposed to be trying to prevent. I think giving your player the option to do something that you tell him he's not going to want to do is probably the worst of all possible compromises you could make, because people who would be most affected by the event (the people who think it's not right), who are really sort of the audience at which it's being directed and will have the most impact, will deliberately avoid it and you end up creating a big media stir for nothing. Honestly, I'm suspicious of any game design construct that forces me to do something that I don't want to do, because if I have learned nothing else from wasting $60 on GTA4, it is that if you try to force me to do something I find personally distasteful, I'm smart enough to find something else to do with my time, and I have to wonder how many other people are like me.

None of that makes it "wrong," though, which was my original objection, if it wasn't anybody else's.

I disagree with your definition as wrong as "Things that are wrong are things that people should not be allowed to do."

But thats just symantics. I appreciate your clairification as I think we are probably on the same side of the issue, but just using different terminology.

For what its worth I dont think anyone in this thread has said that MW2 shouldn't be allowed to exist. We just have varying degrees of "this is the best thing ever" to "this game looks horrible/i would never play it" based on what we know so far.

[Jarmo]

One worrying byproduct of Infinity Ward creating a level like this is that future school shooters could use it for training.

It is easier to kill everyday people once you have gotten used to the sights and sounds you'll encounter in such an extreme situation. The more photorealistic the game is, the more the virtual victims plead for their lives, scream in pain, bleed, crawl and twitch, the better it functions as a tool for desensitising yourself to the carnage you wish to create. The better it helps make you into a faster, more efficient killer who won't be fazed by the human suffering you'll spread around you. The better it assists in getting a bigger kill count before you shoot yourself in the head.

I wonder whether the Infinity Ward people have thought about this side of the equation.

[MattKeil]

One worrying byproduct of Infinity Ward creating a level like this is that future school shooters could use it for training.

No, they can't.

It is easier to kill everyday people once you have gotten used to the sights and sounds you'll encounter in such an extreme situation. The more photorealistic the game is, the more the virtual victims plead for their lives, scream in pain, bleed, crawl and twitch, the better it functions as a tool for desensitising yourself to the carnage you wish to create. The better it helps make you into a faster, more efficient killer who won't be fazed by the human suffering you'll spread around you. The better it assists in getting a bigger kill count before you shoot yourself in the head.

No, it doesn't.

I wonder whether the Infinity Ward people have thought about this side of the equation.

There is no other side of the equation. Playing this level won't make you a better terrorist any more than playing Cabela hunting sims will make you more likely to bag a ten-point buck next time you go to the woods. There is actually some research on the topic, all of which points to the exact opposite of the myths you're spouting here.

I suggest you give this book a read before you continue spreading misinformation.

[Qmanol]

One worrying byproduct of Infinity Ward creating a level like this is that future school shooters could use it for training.

It is easier to kill everyday people once you have gotten used to the sights and sounds you'll encounter in such an extreme situation. The more photorealistic the game is, the more the virtual victims plead for their lives, scream in pain, bleed, crawl and twitch, the better it functions as a tool for desensitising yourself to the carnage you wish to create. The better it helps make you into a faster, more efficient killer who won't be fazed by the human suffering you'll spread around you. The better it assists in getting a bigger kill count before you shoot yourself in the head.

I wonder whether the Infinity Ward people have thought about this side of the equation.

I think half the gamers I went to school with at least started a Quake/Half Life level based on their school ground. Nothing about this is new in any way with respect to your concern trolling.

[JM]

How many of them populated the levels with realistic civilians for you to kill?

[Sol Invictus]

Those pixels had families!

[Mordrak]

How many of them populated the levels with realistic civilians for you to kill?

That doesn't really matter. All that matters is the killers have a little imagination. The columbine guys played Doom a lot. How many of their fellow students were pixellated demons with only a few frames of animation?

[alexlitel]

YouTube responds, be advised for naughty language.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKzOKcgm15c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ys0tecDoW1s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G211fGLs55Y

[JM]

That doesn't really matter. All that matters is the killers have a little imagination. The columbine guys played Doom a lot. How many of their fellow students were pixellated demons with only a few frames of animation?

That completely ignores his point about becoming desensitised but never mind hey

[Mordrak]

That completely ignores his point about becoming desensitised but never mind hey

Honestly, I don't think it desensitizes you to real violence.. in the sense that you build up a tolerance to the real thing from exposure to a videogame. I think real violence has about as much in common with that airport scene as it does with shooting crude pixel art demons.

That's not to say, you can't react to simulated violence in a real way. However, if anyone is confronted with the aftermath of real violence up close, they aren't mistaking that for a video game.

[JM]

I think Jarmo is over-egging it, but:

The more photorealistic the game is, the more the virtual victims plead for their lives, scream in pain, bleed, crawl and twitch, the better it functions as a tool for desensitising yourself to the carnage you wish to create.

That's a little more than "pixellated demons", and it's a valid point.

[Mordrak]

That's a little more than "pixellated demons", and it's a valid point.

If his point is the depictions appear more realistic in an emotionally manipulative way, sure. But that's very different from say, shooting someone in GTA4 and then being desensitized to the situation in person. One thing is really not like the other.

[JM]

I'm willing to discuss what he wrote, not what he didn't write.

[Mordrak]

One worrying byproduct of Infinity Ward creating a level like this is that future school shooters could use it for training.

It is easier to kill everyday people once you have gotten used to the sights and sounds you'll encounter in such an extreme situation. The more photorealistic the game is, the more the virtual victims plead for their lives, scream in pain, bleed, crawl and twitch, the better it functions as a tool for desensitising yourself to the carnage you wish to create. The better it helps make you into a faster, more efficient killer who won't be fazed by the human suffering you'll spread around you. The better it assists in getting a bigger kill count before you shoot yourself in the head.

I wonder whether the Infinity Ward people have thought about this side of the equation.

This is what he wrote and this is what I disagree with. I don't think that sequence is any more effective in training someone to be an efficient killer just because it's "photorealistic." I think the whole premise is flawed. Halo or Counter Strike are more effective than that at creating efficient killers, because at least they will teach you rudimentary team based tactics.

I think being hunter will train you more effectively to be an efficient killer than that sequence, because at least there you're dealing with actual death and learning to use guns. It's a ridiculous assumption on his part that the verisimilitude of that sequence is so great someone could desensitize themselves using a videogame.

If you shoot up an airport, it's not because video games made it easier. It's because you're broken.

[JM]

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the idea that ultra-realistic violence towards innocents can desensitise people, but I'm obviously coming at this from a different angle to you.

Halo teaching "team based tactics" is somewhat countered by the utter lack of realism in the game. Oh, and the fact that it's shit :P

[Mordrak]

Halo teaching "team based tactics" is somewhat countered by the utter lack of realism in the game. Oh, and the fact that it's shit :P

I'm not much of a shooter player, but when I was trying to play multiplayer Halo, friends of mine were trying to show me how to position myself on entering rooms and keep myself self-aware of exits, entry points, etc.

It may be entire unrealistic when it comes to the actual shooting part, but they were making split second decisions and considerations about where to stand and what to look for far faster than my measly little brain.

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the idea that ultra-realistic violence towards innocents can desensitise people, but I'm obviously coming at this from a different angle to you.

Again, I wouldn't characterize that sequence as necessarily ultra-realistic. I've never shot up an airport, so honestly, I don't know. But I figure based on how far off base most media is (let alone being limited to mostly two senses), saying that's ultra realistic and can be used to train efficient killers is a bit like saying The Hunt for Red October could prep me for being more efficient on a submarine. It's a ridiculous assertion.

[JM]

But to say that the more realistic it is the more effective it is at desensitising you is not ridiculous in the slightest.

[Mordrak]

But to say that the more realistic it is the more effective it is at desensitising you is not ridiculous in the slightest.

Really? I don't think it's obvious that more realistic depictions of violence in video games desensitizes people to real violence.

[Jarmo]

Playing this level won't make you a better terrorist any more than playing Cabela hunting sims will make you more likely to bag a ten-point buck next time you go to the woods. There is actually some research on the topic, all of which points to the exact opposite of the myths you're spouting here.

I suggest you give this book a read before you continue spreading misinformation.

We know from phobia therapy that computer simulations are a useful tool for affecting the behaviour and feelings of people. Why then would a somewhat realistic depiction of mass murder of civilians be entirely and totally without effect? Notice that I'm not saying that playing this game will make you behave violently, I don't believe that. I'm concerned about the already disturbed having easy access to helpful tools.

"Grand Theft Childhood" does not seem to address this but instead the old fears of games making people violent. Does the book contain any research about a desensitivising effect? I seem to recall general studies about this effect happening with images and movies. Can we agree that games generally have a more powerful effect than either of those media or is also that a point of contention?

I'd be very interested in research about this but it currently seems to me that book is not it. I'd be happy to obtain it should I be wrong about this.

Nothing about this is new in any way with respect to your concern trolling.

The level of fidelity with respect to reality achievable with the latest generation of gaming technology is new. My amateur take on this is that with increasing resemblance to real life comes increasing emotional effect.

I'm not trolling, trying to provoke people for my own amusement. I'm actually tackling this subject with some trepidation as I fear I might permanently pigeon-hole myself in the minds of some very smart people in here in an undesirable way.

Honestly, I don't think it desensitizes you to real violence.. in the sense that you build up a tolerance to the real thing from exposure to a videogame. I think real violence has about as much in common with that airport scene as it does with shooting crude pixel art demons.

The more photorealistic it gets, the more they have in common. Sure, it's still all happening on a screen, not all around you. It doesn't mean it has no effect whatsoever.

Let's take this to extremes, let's imagine we have at our disposal the holodeck. Using that would by definition be akin to experiencing the real thing. Now let's scale back. Let's drop the resolution a bit. If you examine the grass closely you see some unrealistic artifacts. The surface texture feels a fittle phony in your hand. Does the effect the simulation has at this level now disappear totally and utterly?

I think it more likely that the lower the resolution the less pronounced the effect is, that it's a sliding scale. The more realistic the simulation the more concerned we should be about the uses of the "therapy tools" we create.

That's not to say, you can't react to simulated violence in a real way.

So we agree. The real reaction is what a trainee school shooter would be going for as that would give the familiarisation benefit.

However, if anyone is confronted with the aftermath of real violence up close, they aren't mistaking that for a video game.

It's not about mistaking one for the other, I don't think anyone'll be fooled for a long long time. You can't simulate the smells, the physical sensations like the spatter on your skin etc. It's about even not-completely-convincing simulation having some effect.

[Jarmo]

If you shoot up an airport, it's not because video games made it easier. It's because you're broken.

Of course you have to be already broken to do it. Video games don't make you do it. I just fear certain kinds of games might still make it easier.

I don't think it's obvious that more realistic depictions of violence in video games desensitizes people to real violence.

Think about my holodeck example. At what point of lower resolution does the total disconnect happen? I claim at no point, you just reach a level of unmeasurable effect at some point.

But really, what you said is the crux of the matter. Do we currently know that for sure? I'd be very happy to know it for certain. I have tried to explain the reasoning that has led me to believe otherwise for the moment.

EDIT: Oh, and I don't think FPS-taught tactical considerations rate very highly in this. I'm aware of no school shooters trying to seriously go to prolonged war with armed opponents. The whole point seems to be to kill as many civilians as quickly as you can before the cops show up. Learning to cope with the shared trauma of the situation seems to me helpful in this regard, as repugnant as that is to contemplate.

[Mordrak]

We know from phobia therapy that computer simulations are a useful tool for affecting the behaviour and feelings of people. Why then would a somewhat realistic depiction of mass murder of civilians be entirely and totally without effect? Notice that I'm not saying that playing this game will make you behave violently, I don't believe that. I'm concerned about the already disturbed having easy access to helpful tools.

The only helpful tool they need is a way to mentally work themselves up to that point. The nerve to do that is mostly in their head. They don't need videogames for that, nor do I think they are particularly effective tools for that any more than the way people have previously done so.

I don't think comparing a specifically constructed therapy program (with 6 walled screens no less), is all that constructive or useful when talking about Call of Duty.

The level of fidelity with respect to reality achievable with the latest generation of gaming technology is new. My amateur take on this is that with increasing resemblance to real life comes increasing emotional effect.

Again, there's a difference between emotional trickery in a medium and a confrontation with the real thing.

The more photorealistic it gets, the more they have in common. Sure, it's still all happening on a screen, not all around you. It doesn't mean it has no effect whatsoever.

Again, you're making a specific claim to what that effect is, which I think is dubious. You're claiming the effect is a desensitization to real world violence.

Let's take this to extremes, let's imagine we have at our disposal the holodeck. Using that would by definition be akin to experiencing the real thing. Now let's scale back. Let's drop the resolution a bit. If you examine the grass closely you see some unrealistic artifacts. The surface texture feels a fittle phony in your hand. Does the effect the simulation has at this level now disappear totally and utterly?

Oh yes, let's pretend about something that doesn't exist. Great way to make your point.

So we agree. The real reaction is what a trainee school shooter would be going for as that would give the familiarisation benefit.

No, not necessarily. It depends on what the actual reaction is. A would be shooter that felt guilty at shooting digital people wouldn't be a shooter. The whole notion that someone would train themselves on this to get over their initial disgust, guilt, or whatever is preposterous.

[Wheelkick]

Sure games train you, If you play them extesively over a period of time. If you made a CS map of your office, and played that extesively over and over it would train you the most efficient way of manouver that office, and how to best cover areas and choke points.
Playing CoD4 a lot will probably having you react to everyday situations a bit different when they seem similar to what you have experienced in game.

But if this desesitives you would also be dependend on how these situations are presented. I don't know how much you know about the scene in discussion here, but it might be that it is presented in a way that will cause the opposite effect, i.e. making you more sensitive to similar situations. This will also be subjective to the individual.

Long story short: I do not believe that we can draw any clear conclusions on the effect of having this or any similar to real world scenario in a game. I do believe that there will be an effect, either from prolonged use or from the receptiveness in the individual

[Jarmo]

I don't think comparing a specifically constructed therapy program (with 6 walled screens no less), is all that constructive or useful when talking about Call of Duty.

Yes, I'm aware of the large differences. I was merely illustrating the general principle of the effect existing with something I already knew about.

Again, there's a difference between emotional trickery in a medium and a confrontation with the real thing.

Sure, but does that mean that the former has no effect whatsoever?

Oh yes, let's pretend about something that doesn't exist. Great way to make your point.

Not a great way, no, but should illustrate the train of thought. I'm sad it prevented you from addressing the actual question. At what point of resolution does the effect disappear? I think we should think about these things even before we achieve total verisimilitude with our simulations.

A would be shooter that felt guilty at shooting digital people wouldn't be a shooter. The whole notion that someone would train themselves on this to get over their initial disgust, guilt, or whatever is preposterous.

You have a great point. I'm sure you're right about that. I don't think they would use a game to enable themselves to commit the atrocity in the first place. Certainly the previous shooters seem to have had no overwhelming difficulty in acting out their fantasies.

I still think even people that far gone must have some hesitation when they do the deed. The one-time experience must be overwhelming. Anything that helps to make it more familiar makes it easier and faster to kill. I don't think the "training" is the difference between zero dead and eight dead. I fear it might be the difference between eight dead and eleven dead.

Visualisation techniques are commonly used in athletics, preparing for public speaking etc. What better way to visualise what you're about to do than with the help of the most effective audiovisual mass media we have? Acting out the deed beforehand is a great way to prepare. You can't really train for this in the local mall so you might very well substitute easily available technology for it.

A guy pondering joining the ranks of the school shooters would certainly be aware of this game and would in all probability have already played it. I think it might give him pleasure to lord it over the helpless insects crawling on the floor begging. Some good reinforcement of his already twisted ideas going on there.

[antifood]

"This is the video game generation of soldiers. " 'Ctrl+Alt+Del,' " the U.S. Army noted in a recent study, "is as basic as 'ABC.' " And computer simulations -- as military officials prefer to call them -- have transformed the way the United States military fights wars, as well as soldiers' ways of killing."

Lets let the Army weigh in.

[Matt Perkins]

There is no doubt that some of the more advanced shooters CAN be used to train people be better combat soldiers. They can't do everything, of course, but they can improve tactics, decision making ability, critical decision at fast paces, etc.

But that's only if they are used that way. The video I saw wasn't disturbing because people are going to use it for terrorist training, but because of the visceral nature of the killing and suffering.

Does that mean the MW2 engine couldn't be used for tactical training at some future date, no, but a game like this isn't training you to be a soldier. It's putting you in a role and acting as if you already know what you're doing. It isn't training you, it's showing you a story in which you have some control at points.

What Mordrak's friends were teaching him above are real tactics used in real life situations by cops, swat and in most small arms warfare. It's the exact same stuff you read in training books and it's used in Halo because it Halo represents a 3D space well enough that real world tactics work in it.

[antifood]

Matt, good points. I think it's ridiculous to think that an immersive stimulation can not desensitize someone. I think the military would agree with me as well.

There are also a number of studies about the desensitization effects of pornography. I think that is related to this discussion.

[ElGuapo]

Have you guys ever shot a gun or played paintball? (or been in a war, I suppose)

I don't think videogames train you for combat, at all. Just cocking, aiming, and reloading a gun would throw off most people who play videogames. It's far different than a flight simulator.

[Brian Seiler]

Have you guys ever shot a gun or played paintball? (or been in a war, I suppose)

I don't think videogames train you for combat, at all. Just cocking, aiming, and reloading a gun would throw off most people who play videogames. It's far different than a flight simulator.

Just watch the episode of Bullshit! from this season where Penn and Teller weigh in. They take a nine year old kid who plays plenty of Call of Duty out to a gun range and have him shoot an assault rifle under the guidance of a trained marine. He ended up crying on his mother's shoulder after firing the damn thing once. I actually got just a little verklempt. And that was just shooting at a piece of paper with a target on it.

[Tim Partlett]

Two spaceships approaching each other, each travelling at 90% the speed of light relative to some third observer between them, do not perceive each other as approaching at 90% + 90% = 180% the speed of light; instead they each perceive the other as approaching at slightly less than 99.5% the speed of light."

Oh yes, let's pretend about something that doesn't exist. Great way to make your point.

.....