KeyFox

It can be argued that we walk a fine line between democracy and fascism, as well. There are proponents both ways. In any event, policing is about a balance, between civil liberties and procedures to keep us safe. For example, I really don't like the whole cameras on every corner approach, or using defense surveillance satellites for criminal surveillance purposes unless there's a warrant, at the very least. The US FISA court is outdated and needs to change, but it NEEDS to be there. Indiscriminate tapping, bugging, reading mails and such is not kosher, and I for one don't think it's necessary or viable. Would that sort of thing have stopped 9/11? Only in dreams. US intelligence had knowledge of such a plan, overseas, but didn't think it was to be implemented here until too late. And the intelligence and law enforcement sides (of even the same agencies) weren't communicating with one another. There's enough blame to go around, but really, it astounds me that people want to point at the folks defending them and blame them for this attack when, well, duh...it's the folks that bloody well attacked us that were at fault, yes? And now, we are going WAY far afield.

Speaking as someone familiar with American law... We have a Constitutional right to own firearms. We do NOT have the right to bear them around. Every state and even different cities have their own statutes on what's legal for Joe Citizen concerning their weapon. In Arizona, everybody has a gun rack in their truck, and it cannot be directly corrolated, but they have less VIOLENT crime. That does not mean that Arizona has less overall crime, mind you. Next, individual states have laws concerning burglary. In California, if you feel an imminent threat to your life or the life of others in your home, you may fire in self defense - and basically, they're very lax on what constitutes an imminent threat when one is inside your home. In nearly every other state, unless it can be proven that you were truly in imminent danger, if you shoot someone during a burglary, YOU will be the one charged. We have ridiculous cases on the books of burglars falling down a flight of stairs and suing the homeowners for not maintaining their property! The American 'cowboy' image is certainly one that seems to pervade the rest of the world, but not so much here - depending on the part of the country you live in. And no, the carrying around of arms comes from much earlier than that - the Second Amendment's clause is there to maintain a standing militia in the event of foreign invasion. It is the single most controversial Amendment in the US Constitution, followed closely by the First Amendment. On the question of arming police - there are valid points on both sides of the argument. I know the history of the bobbies and such, and in large part, was impressed with the fact that they did not carry firearms. That said, and having been through a police academy myself, police officers are taught specifically to resort to their sidearm as a last resort, or instantly upon imminent threat to a life. There is an escalation process, and it is very concise, but cops are humans too. Sometimes they get rattled, sometimes they make bad decisions. The real difficulty with cops in America is that studies prove that 95% walk the line, are good cops and do their job and do it well. It's a fairly thankless job, too, so really, more people should be thanking the police...but who likes the police? Even I didn't particularly like police (long story). It's the 5% of 'bad apples' that wind up on non-detailed, whipping to frenzy 6-minute spots on the evening news. And those are the ones that get the attention and drive the fervor. That's not to say that cops are perfect and shouldn't be watched, it's just that sensationalism in our journalism causes more issues than it solves. We have occasional laws banning assault weapons and the like, but really, these laws only affect law-abiding citizens - which means it does nothing helpful to prevent the weapons from falling into the hands of those we're trying to prevent them from. It's not helpful in reducing the problem of gangbangers wandering around with a pair of semi-automatics in their sag. Nor is any other gun-control law. Why? Because by definition, the people using them to commit crimes are CRIMINALS - they don't care about the law they're breaking to begin with - or if they do care about it after the incident, well, that's fine, they can think about it in a cell or on their wait on Death Row. And the penal system is let another can of worms with its own issues. And, I think we're digressing a little, but, well, so?

No, I think this one thread is enough to cover the bases, both psychological and sociological, as pertains to this topic. It'll just be a long thread. I'm a student in Justice Studies, covering many aspects of law enforcement, and required coursework in sociology and psychology, amongst other things. So all of this is rather pertinent to my field and something that's fresh in my mind every day. Thank you.

And I contend that even if it is taught that it is NOT acceptable, a child may still be prone to violence and carry that into adulthood. It's proven. A child brought up where they are taught law, consequences and the like is still capable and even likely to engage in aberrant or criminal behavior. We call it 'acting out on repressed impulses' and dismiss it, but that happens a LOT.

This is a theory, and one of many, in both cognitive and sociological models. It seems plausible for the most part, but then explain to me the sociological development or learned behavior of a sociopath? You can't. Psychologists can't. Criminologists can't. They can theorize and define what we call a sociopath, but not how one becomes one - just traits that allow us to attach the label. That said, the 'cycle of violence' that passes on from one family to the next is certainly proven as valid, but not always. A child growing up in a violent household does not necessarily perpetuate that violence on their own family when they have one. And sometimes, the pattern skips a generation...so how is that explained by learned behavior? Parents and guardians are strong role models, given. So are peer groups. But the behaviors need a basis to form upon, and that, IMHO and those of several criminologists and sociologists, is instinct. So, you're both right - it is learned behavior to an extent, and it is genetic as well. A child growing up in a perfectly pastoral household can still turn out to be Jeffery Dahmer, and a child growing up in the Manson family can still grow up to be Mahatma Gandhi. The potential for either is within all of us. I feel that yes, there is a lot of power and control in violence, after all, we see it in sports all the time - dominance is a genetic imperative, not a learned behavior. HOW we dominate is learned. And in our case, playing violent video games, we get a thrill out of cutting loose from the mores, laws and structure of our society and just plain dominating through some of the most brutal forms a human animal is capable of in warfare. We don't get into the REALLY ugly aspects of human behavior during wartime (or even peacetime), and I'm sure I don't need to cite examples. It feels good to just do it, when we know it isn't acceptable behavior out in the real world and there would be consequences. In video games, we gamers police ourselves, by and large, and even there we have structure and rules, and not complete anarchy (unless you're playing Last Man Standing - and even in those sorts of games, there's rules).

So, as I said before in the aforementioned thread, personally, I believe that there's a killer and a saint in all of us. The killer is the stronger imperative, and we need to let that aggressive nature out in things we do. Luckily enough, we have many non-lethal aggressive fashions to simulate what we want to do. War is fascinating to many, even those that proclaim what a bunch of sick freaks wargamers and FPTS/FPS gamers are. So the real question is: why is warfare so fascinating? Sports are competitive. Business is competitive. We have a billion bits of aggressive us vs. them in our daily lives, so why is this so engrossing? Soldiers that have been in real combat will tell you what it's like and we're rightly horrified. Yet, something happens like 9/11 for example, and suddenly our civilized veneer is stripped away...we want blood for blood. Tragedies like VT and Columbine make us ill and calling out for stronger, harsher measures...If the offense touches us deeply, we'll go to extremes - it's the animal in us, yet unlike any other animal except in rare aberrations, we are capable of killing for the mere fun of it. We've all felt the feeling of wanting to just reach out and crush some offensive person, or the feeling that real suffering needs to be brought to some individual for a loathsome crime and so on. We do feel a thrill at watching movies with exciting action scenes, getting caught up in the feelings of combat and carnage, even though we know in a fashion it isn't real. There are many arguments that say that violent tv shows and games desensitize people to violence, perhaps to a degree it might even be true. Not to the degree that the ultraconservatives think it is, of course. Personally, I'm glad I have things like video games and such to act out any violent, aggressive impulses in a safe, sane environment. That may be a rationalization, but so what? I enjoy my games and I have fun, which means I'll keep playing them, and keep playing them with folks who have similar interests.

Replay value and moddability are big points for me when getting a game. Graphics - everybody loves the eyecandy. Gameplay - without solid gameplay, I won't play it. Simple as that. But if a game is good and I had a good time with it, I'll come back to it years later and play it. Likewise, if there's the ability to add mods and a good active modding community, playing is virtually endless. Look at Oblivion, for example. And certainly the R6/GR series'.

Healthy expression of a violent and/or aggressive impulse, demonstration of power, etc. The psychobabble is endless. Numerous stories and theories exist, studies have been conducted and so on. Numbers don't lie, but they can be shaded to twist facts, too, remember that when looking at a survey and the like. I could say something like this: inside every one of us - male and female alike, though more concentrated in the male - is an instinctual predator waiting to cut loose. Everyone has the potential to be a monster just as much as a saint or a pacifist. In a video game, only pixels die and are reconstituted over and over again. In reality, well... But is this what it all boils down to? I don't know about that. There's a hundred different factors going on in any one individual as to why they play a video game to begin with, then a shooter, and then an FPTS. Is there a common denominator? For many, perhaps, but it doesn't play through for everyone. Yes and no. We're more discussing the marketing, developing, publishing, and design fundamentals that go into the development of the FPTS genre games, and the impact of the consoles upon development between the arcade-feel games and more 'tactical' feeling sims, directly leading to the question of different development between console and PC platforms. Admittedly, why we play these games directly impacts marketing and design, but still, that question in and of itself is one for its own thread, IMHO. Because it's like asking: why are we here? It's more philosophical and abstract than a concrete question, and I'm sure everyone has their own theories, religious implications, moral views, psychology, sociology, anthropology, telepathy from outer space, whatever, about it.

It is an interesting question, but again, a can of worms best left unopened, or at least, a tad off-topic for this thread. Feel free to start a thread on it if you see fit, but not in this particular discussion, please?

This is the heart of the discussion, truly enough. There is such a thing as too much, there is too little, there is not enough of this or that. But it all falls flat without a solid backbone to work with first. What I've always found great about the R6/GR franchises, frankly, is the fact that after market, we (and by we I mean those brilliant folks who like to tinker around with the guts of the product) can modify it to suit our desires for more/less/better/tweaked. This is the overriding reason I choose to get R6/GR games on PC rather then 360 - because we can change it to suit us later on down the road. That's magic, boys and girls. Is it hard to do? Yah, you betcha. And sometimes the tools are difficult to use, or hard to come by. But someone out there with a lot more time, money or both than I have has gone to trouble to figure it out and make a change. Good, bad, whatever, they do it and figure out how to make it work. To the modders: cheers, lads. Thanks for your work.

*sigh* You will have to forgive me if I come across as harsh, but I am really tired of hearing this one... Whenever this topic comes up, someone invariably goes to this extreme on the other end. First of all, as previously explained, I can't enlist even if I wanted to, to those who say enlist. I'm a cancer survivor, if you must know and more, I don't really want to kill people even if it is sometimes necessary in the course of whatever. My hat's off to those who have had the opportunity and temerity to serve their respective countries. We're well aware that true warfare is not fun and games, thank you. Yet, here we all are, playing games that simulate death and carnage, and lets just not open up that particular can of worms, okay? I think of games like these more like airsoft or paintball, just more graphically simulated. Next, when we as tactical GAMERS are referring to realism, what we want is generally well-employed tactics, bounding, covering, an AI that knows not to fire a GL at 5 feet from target, an AI that knows not to cross a fire lane or shoot right past your character's head, an AI smart enough to respond to tactics presented to it and plan accordingly to make a decent but not impossible challenge, realistically rendered weapons, damage effects on continuing to play the game for player or AI alike, realistic call signs, radio traffic, hand signals, group formations, entry methods, etc. No, not a single one of us wants to deal with watching our friends get blown to hell, or being alone in the bitter cold or heat night after miserable night, starving, low on ammo, behind enemy lines, the stink of rotting corpses of some children that got hit by a stray shell, etc. So please, folks, don't bother bringing those elements even into the conversation. That's just plain rude and insulting our intelligence - or at the very least mine. We are speaking of realistic elements of tactical warfare that make a good GAME. You can call it a sim or a game and split hairs if you wish on the definitions, but what we - in this forum, thread and context - are referring to is a GAME. "Rant off".

Devs don't always get a lump sum deal with a publisher. Sorry if I was being misleading with my statement - I was referring to an established company, with employed developers on their payroll. They get their salary from their company rain or shine as opposed to free devs who pitch to a publisher on their own. And yes, all that other crud applies to the developer, but the already established company isn't paying out royalties to its developers, the IP belongs to the dev company, who sold it to the publisher, yes? This is what I was referring to, abject apologies.

Thank Whatever for the power of NARCOM, honestly. I mean, really, there's absolutely no pressure on a time-critical stealth operation when the lead operator - in the middle of said operations - is constantly hounded by generals, supposed support personnel and good gravy, is that the Commander in Chief?! "Mitchell, you'd better haul butt, son, I know you don't have anything better to do right now than to pay attention to me screaming in your face!" *BLAMBLAMBLAM* "Sorry general, I'll get right on that!" "Hey Scott? I've got a bunch of footage that won't help you at all about everyone saying that we're really bad people and need to be booted back out of the country. Just thought you should know, makes for fine viewing. I know you're probably sneaking to cap that fellow there in the back of the head - I can see him on satellite right next to you - but I really thought now would be the time, and oh, by the way, I know I prattle on and on, but it's really great working with you guys. You know you can count on me, all the time. Gosh golly gee whillikers!" *phut* "What? Sorry, was a little busy DOING MY DAMN JOB to pay attention there, Beaver, did you say something important?" "Captain Mitchell, you saved my keister before down there, and boy howdy, I'm grateful. Now, while I know you're storming that bunker solo and we need you to charge in there as fast as possible even knowing that you have to use stealth tactics to get through the cubic buttload of tangos inhabiting it, I just wanted to let you know that millions of lives depend on you to get in there and take care of that nuke. In case you'd forgotten. I just thought it would be helpful if the most powerful man in the Free World - and incidentally the CiC, the one that ultimately controls every aspect of your life and owns your soul, soldier - told you what was at stake, again, while you're busy doing that for every American who will never know you ever did any of it for them. And with that, I'll let the general scream at you some more. Have a nice day." "Fantasitc. No pressure, Mr. President, thanks a load." Now we know why in TV and movies that the heroes suddenly develop 'static' and have to turn off their radios... Yes, I know it's part of the storyline. Yes, I know it's there for dramatic value. Yes, I know it's supposed to set up important plot points and redirection. But Hotel Sierra, SHUT UP! Give me an off switch, PLEASE! I don't mind getting my mission briefings that way, or even confirmation that my exfil helo is on the way, or reinforcements or what have you, but what team leader wants or needs a general constantly poking his nose into what he's doing, or how he conducts his operations at the orders of said general? Gone are the days of: here's your mission, good luck, we'll see you on the other side. This is the support we'll have available for you, call for it or we'll report it inbound. This is your discretion, get it done. Honestly. Having an option to turn off the rantings or the like would be exceedingly beneficial. Thank you for your attention to NARCOM. Six clear. [Merged with one of the existing threads on this - please check before starting new threads]

I've played both. The 360 version is not BAD. It looks very pretty, it operates pretty much as advertised, but it is faster paced and geared towards assault rather than sneakiness. Sometimes that's cool. BTW, 360 owners, Summit Strike is backwards compatible with the 360 and plays well. Set to the highest difficulty settings, the SP campaign WILL kick your tail - it can be frustrating as hell, but worth playing if you haven't. In contrast, the PC version is slower paced (depending on the map, there are several with just plain waves of enemies, after all - stealth that!) and requires much more on the part of the SP commander in utilizing tactics and available cover for bounding, fire lanes, etc. Or you can set them on Follow like many do...

The high cost of employing that many people on one project. Games may appear to make a ton of money. But development costs 3/4 of a ton of money. Hear hear. This is really it in a nutshell, lads. Profit margin. Games DO cost a heck of a lot to make. From that standpoint alone it is _understandable_ why companies turn towards what's going to make them the most cash fast - namely console games. Have you ever noticed that a 360 game comes out at around 60 bucks (US) and then stays that way, even a year or two later? Whereas, depending on the title, a PC title comes out at about 50, then there are usually sales and after 4-6 months, a good 60-75% of titles drop to about 30, if not 20, brand new and off the shelf? Major reason one why I possess less 360 games than PC games - available expendable cash. Honestly, I will fork over 60 bucks for a game if the quality is good and the draw irresistable, but really folks - that's a healthy chunk o' change. Games make a decent amount, I can tell you. But there is a LOT that goes into making them. Although, having been game QA at one company which will remain nameless, I know that most of the money for a given project goes to the dev engineers, who in some companies command ridiculous amounts of money for their salaries alone. This is not to diss any hard-working, productive dev engineers out there, boys and girls, but really, I have seen the seedier side too and it has rankled. For example, engineers who contribute very little to the actual code of a given project, get their full usual job perks AND their name goes on a given best-selling title. That's frustrating. And another story, I digress. A smaller studio, self-funded (like say, Id, way back when - and likely Blackfoot, now?) with a bunch of enthusiastic developers is much more likely to make a hit. Their motivations? 1) We get to put this together how WE want to, do it the way we envision it, with no one breathing down our necks but our own conscience and 2) direct shares in the profits, rather than a guarenteed lump salary - if it doesn't sell well, you don't see a lot of return, so do it solid and right and be responsive to your consumers' needs! My own observations, folks from Blackfoot can tell me different, of course.