THE GRAW DRAW

[tecmic]

Ok, if your interested here's a invitation to offer your knowledge, understanding or simply an opinion on what motivates us to buy and play the genre when, in real life we would probably find it difficult or even impossible, to kill or injure another human.

Some don't want to even talk about the reality, others won't admit that we are playing out a basic instinct. There's much debate about violence in computer games in general but I'm more interested in the particular attraction that Ghost Recon has produced since it's initial launch.

Ghost Recon was a product which had me hooked as soon as I first saw it although I don't, like some, hang onto [GR] and still play it. Graw's lack of available mods is a bind. I went through GRAW2's nine missions in a week and became frustrated that there wasn't more! For me, there's a limit to how many times I want to repeat them. I like the newness of the first time play as it brings unpredictability and surprise as real life does but you get a second chance and a third and a fourth, ad infinitum. I liked the contemporary feel [GR] had but I like the GRAW ambiance even more. The 'vintage' military sims don't appeal to me nor do futuristic combat games generally because they mostly lack realism. Picking up and firing a weapon in GRAW feels right to me. I have an Airsoft SA80 and I can easily visualise the SA80 as a weapon choice in GRAW without any hesitation.

On the 'Food For Thought' thread somebody said that we wouldn't want the actual realism of real world combat in GRAW as it is totally shocking and traumatic to experience. I agree. The realism we crave in PC games is a 'cleaned up' version of real life but realistic in the sense that, as far as it goes, it accurately reproduces the real world events and action that it does mimic. I know! I know! A contradiction already.

It portrays humans being shot, blown up etc. well maybe the level to which that's taken is a choice given to the individual player in software options? I don't know, what do others think?

The realism that would enhance GRAW for me is the physics. The current attempt to improve these, I think, is still at an early development stage. I look forward to AI that accurately mimics how other humans would react if I took a shot at them and how a society would be affected if you were conducting a street war in their town. The early GRAW trailer gives a good example, where the guys are walking down the street and reacting to civilians closing windows and the truck of rebels driving across the street. That looks convincing! The actual game lacks that feel, don't you agree?

Mike.

Edited August 21, 2007 by tecmic

[KeyFox]

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.

[tecmic]

You make valid points Keyfox but the one element of human nature, I believe, that drives all this is, power through control.

We are unquestionably drawn to things powerful as they will provide us with control. Control over both our environment and other humans. Look at any of the infamous figures in human history, Genkis Khan, the Pharoahs, Oliver Cromwell, Napolean, Hitler and even Saddam Hussain, to name but a few, they all craved power over other humans.

Guns are a prime control medium, in war and in peacetime crime because they are an ultimate control mechanism and give human individuals the power of life and death over others. There is of course the competitive aspect of mastering weapons and this manifests in various sporting activities.

Read forum posts, apart from the whinging and whining on what they do and don't want, they major on the useability of weaponry in GRAW and the levels of skill attained by players in staying alive and the mastery of weapon types. This is control of power, isn't it? I certainly get a kick out of taking out a tank or heli with the Zeus!!

Digressing for a moment......I disagree with you on the 'violence in videos' syndrome. The young and certain others, I think, are influenced by excessive violence in entertainment mediums. The young are 'blank cheques', who's moral standards are still being developed, especially critical where there's little or no parental guidance being exerted. 'Street law' becomes their standard and is fed by what is fashionable in games and film entertainment. (It's becoming a major problem in the UK.)

Mike.

Edited August 22, 2007 by tecmic

[pz3]

We play violent video games to indulge in violent behaviors we would usually never be willing to do IRL.

This is tied into every aspect of our culture today. From football to movies.

It is no different then the romans having gladiators fight to the death except they are using real people and not video games to do it.

This is also seen in many other aspect that conflict with cultures or laws. For example dog or ###### fighting. It is a fight to the death over an opposing threat to maintain a since of dominance.

This feeling is natural and can become to real. It is a instinct of animal behavior..... when one mans dog dies in mexico dog fighting arena, he throws a hand grenade into a crowd of spectators.

You can only assume defeat is not an option in most peoples minds and they wont tolerate it.

[tecmic]

Hi Pz3,

What you say is true but have we not made any progress in 2000 years? Apparently not!

Given the 'tools' of war we have now, how long do you reckon we're going to last? The more we discuss the subject the less it seems likely that we as a species, will survive long enough to know life without violence.

This instinct to master, dominate and control, that we all possess, seems to be too deep rooted to be easily overcome. On the other hand how do you take notice of six and a half billion opinions? Somebody has to be in charge!!

I know, what about Mitchell?

Mike.

[pz3]

It is deep rooted but is easier to overcome for some individuals then others.

For example.... men bearing down on 13 year old girls. Most guys know for moral reasons or action and reaction (getting arrested) it is obvious that it is a bad idea. Sadly the guys that do the act think with their lower brains and that tells them its fine and natural to do what they do.

So while they may know it is wrong they literally almost don't think about it and it is more instinct then anything else.

Ive caught hell for saying this before but there is good science behind it. Just things I pick up from time to time.

One notable research study on politics also showed good evidence why certain parties differ from other parties and it is all related how they use their brains.

Don't think we can ever really change it. It is interesting to read about.

Edited August 24, 2007 by pz3

[tecmic]

Digressing again into the wider issue for a moment....

Violent behavour in humans is not a forgone conclusion. We learn to be violent!

I believe each of us is influenced and modeled by our surroundings from birth. The biggest influence being our parents or guardians. The absence of moral standards or violence in a family is handed down through generations as if it's a normal way of life. The children develop in an environment where violence is used in everyday relationships and move into adulthood knowing no other way of life. Look at a violent child's parents! It's likely that one or both of them are habitually violent and aggressive.

The wider environment in which a child develops also contributes. Peer groups exert pressure to behave in certain ways which can range from innocent childish preferences to major crimes in the worst cases.

Apart from biological mutations and geneological defects, the way we act as individuals results from what we learn and experience from birth.

[pz3]

I will disagree with you there.

Violent behavior is just behavior. It is no different then when you become unhappy about something you make an angry face.

How you deal with emotions though is up to the parents to teach.

[KeyFox]

Digressing again into the wider issue for a moment....

Violent behavour in humans is not a forgone conclusion. We learn to be violent!

I believe each of us is influenced and modeled by our surroundings from birth. The biggest influence being our parents or guardians. The absence of moral standards or violence in a family is handed down through generations as if it's a normal way of life. The children develop in an environment where violence is used in everyday relationships and move into adulthood knowing no other way of life. Look at a violent child's parents! It's likely that one or both of them are habitually violent and aggressive.

The wider environment in which a child develops also contributes. Peer groups exert pressure to behave in certain ways which can range from innocent childish preferences to major crimes in the worst cases.

Apart from biological mutations and geneological defects, the way we act as individuals results from what we learn and experience from birth.

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).

[tecmic]

Ok, if what your saying is that every human is born with the potential for violence, I'll agree with that but it doesn't normally become part of their behaviour unless they are taught that it's acceptable..

What I contend is, that potential is realised when the child experiences regular violence from a parent or other close family member. It teaches the child that it's an acceptable way to behave even if the rest of society doesn't agree. My parents did it so it's ok logic!! It may go unchallenged until some point in later life when the individual in confronted by police or other authority because of their unacceptable behaviour.

This is interesting but how does it relate to playing GRAW? Is GRAW a safety valve? Are we releasing pent up aggression and that potential for violence mentioned? When I play GRAW I'm not aware of any basic instinct to kill, it's more a case of trying to survive because those guys out there will take me out, given the chance. For most people I think this is the logic employed in a combat/war situation. There are, of course, always the exceptions.

Edited August 23, 2007 by tecmic

[pz3]

Thats actually a really good post keyfox.

[tecmic]

I agree, a very informed response Keyfox. Are you a practising pyschologist?

Mike.

[KeyFox]

Ok, if what your saying is that every human is born with the potential for violence, I'll agree with that but it doesn't normally become part of their behaviour unless they are taught that it's acceptable..

What I contend is, that potential is realised when the child experiences regular violence from a parent or other close family member. It teaches the child that it's an acceptable way to behave even if the rest of society doesn't agree. My parents did it so it's ok logic!! It may go unchallenged until some point in later life when the individual in confronted by police or other authority because of their unacceptable behaviour.

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.

[tecmic]

Ok, there are many influences that can trigger the basic instinct but I think here we are talking about generalities and the norm, if there is any such thing in this subject, as it applies to playing GRAW.

Do you think we should ask the mods to start a pyschological topic? It's a complex and absorbing subject, for sure.

Mike.

[KeyFox]

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 agree, a very informed response Keyfox. Are you a practising pyschologist?

Mike.

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.

Thats actually a really good post keyfox.

Thank you.

[tecmic]

Good morning guys! Well it is here

Just been mulling over the posts so far. I'd just like to touch on an aspect that is pertinent to us, here in the UK.

You're probably aware that, in general, the police aren't armed here. I'll qualify that by adding, since terrorism became a prominent problem, starting here with the Irish problem (IRA bombings), police with guns have been a lot more in evidence.

Concerning arming our police, I used to agree with the philosophy that it would probably accelerate the condition of criminals arming themselves in response. Now, with gun crime becoming a daily event and I'll comment on why I think that is in a moment, I'm thinking it's unreasonable to expect our police to confront criminals with a high possibility of them pulling a gun. Guns are now widely available and worryingly, rife amongst the young.

We cannot continue with the traditional attitude that 'guns will promote guns'. They are already here!

Ok, regarding the question 'why has gun crime increased?'

I'm not a xenophobic but we can't ignore the fact that we've imported a criminal culture from eastern Europe. In the last 5 years eastern block countries have joined the EU, which has opened the flood gates for immigration into the UK and they have, by over a million. It's a well known fact that in some of these cultures, crime is endemic in the society and for these criminal organisations, moving into the UK was too good an opportunity to miss.

I believe we urgently need to equip our police to meet the threat.

Mike.

Edited August 24, 2007 by tecmic

[pz3]

Bad man with gun can only be stopped by a good man with gun. At least that is how it usually works.

[tecmic]

Hi Pz3,

It certainly evens things up a bit although I think the US is a special case, given the attitude to guns there.

Update: Ironically, there's just be a news item posted..... A traffic police car was fired at when they stopped to investigate a parked car on the M5 motorway an hour ago.

Mike.

[pz3]

Cops get shot at over here to. Pretty crazy how they disrespect the law.

as for our special case... it used to be law in some states that you have to carry a weapon. 1 city still has that law... almost no crime there supposibly.

[tecmic]

I always believed that the relaxed attitude towards owning/carrying firearms in the US is an inheritance from the 'Wild West' days when practically everyone armed themselves for protection as law enforcement was thin on the ground or even non existent out west.

I will admit that do like the idea that it's written into your constitution that each individual has the right to defend themselves. This can mean with a firearm! Although here the criminal can prosecute you if you injure them, as far as I'm concerned, anyone breaking into my house to rob or attack, has automatically lost their rights and will get what's coming!! In opposition to the stupid laws in this country many Brits think the same way I do!

Mike.

[KeyFox]

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?

[tecmic]

I don't mind digressing. This is a big subject with many facets, all of which have a link of some description, back to the core issue.

I appreciated there were variations between states concerning how laws are enforced but I didn't realise that you too can be sued by a burglar or whoever! It's a ridiculous contradiction and sends exactly the wrong signals to would-be law breakers.

The police perform their responsibilities by consent of the public but no civil police force can successfully enforce law without the support of that public. Not only should we be thankful to them but should cooperate and be their 'eyes and ears' whenever possible. Much criminality survives only because nobody wants to get involved. No criminal could resist or survive long if the massed public will works in unision against them. It would be akin to having millions of cctv cameras installed around the country.

Given the way European Community human rights edicts have weakened criminal law here, I can readily appreciate how and why some might resort to dubious methods to take the low life off of our streets if our government continues to pussyfoot around the issue. Apparently, in at least one of our major cities, guns are passed around between kids like mobile phones, they have no fear or reservations about possessing and handling weapons, in fact they are a status symbol. That has got to be stopped and soon.

Edited August 24, 2007 by tecmic

[pz3]

while people will debate what the 2nd amendment really means all you have to do is look at the people who proposed it in the first place or even the proposed constitutions.

It was ment for national and state defence. In some instances of the proposed constitution it was actually used to limit large military.

There is no doubt the amendment was originally supposed to be the insurance to keep a tyranny from happening.

[tecmic]

Yeah! We walk a thin line between democracy and anarchy.

[KeyFox]

Yeah! We walk a thin line between democracy and anarchy.

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.