On Realism and Virtual Murder 473
Gamasutra has an interesting article about how the push toward realistic graphics and extremely lifelike characters in modern games is making the term "murder simulator" — once laughed off for referring to pixelated dying Nazis — a concept to take more seriously. The author is careful to simply explore the issue, and not come to a specific conclusion; he doesn't say that we should or shouldn't prevent it from happening, only that it's worth consideration. (One section is even titled "Forget the kids," saying that decisions for what children play fall under parental responsibility.) Quoting:
"We should start rethinking these issues now before we all slide down the slope together and can't pull ourselves back up again. Or, even worse, before governments step in and dictate what can and can't be depicted or simulated in video games via legislation. ... Obviously, what makes an acceptable game play experience for each player is a personal choice that should be judged on a person-by-person basis (or on a parent to child basis), and I believe it should stay that way. As for me, I'm already drawing the line at BioShock — I can barely stomach the game as it is. Sure, I could play it more and desensitize myself, but I don't want to. And that's just me. It's up to you and a million other adult gamers to decide what's best for yourselves and to draw the line on virtual violence where you feel most comfortable."
Re:Ban how to host a murder while you're at it. (Score:3, Informative)
The way I read it, his major concern is that as the person who commits realistic murder, YOU will be affected by the emotional backlash of seeing "someone" suffer as a consequence of your actions.
Which must be a good thing, because it will make non-psychopaths far less likely to murder someone in real life.
There will be screaming, but no crying. (Score:5, Informative)
There will be screaming, but no crying. In GTA or anything similar, there are groans, shrieks, and most of them are a little "overdone" to be comical. A real death is less gory, but far more traumatizing. They would have to plead for their lives, start praying, or simply mutter the name of their child or their mother until their life leaves their body. I think only a very small subset of the population is going to want to see real death simulations.
Recently I ran over a fox, and I thought it was a small dog so I pulled over and I got out of the car. It was twisting in agony, gushing blood from it's mouth, and I watched it as it died. It tried to get up a few times, the rattling in it's throat grew louder, and I recognized the moment it gave up. That was the most terrifying part to watch, not the actual death at the end, but the moment were it seemed to realize that it's time had run out.
Death and suffering are something we have a natural aversion to. That's why Shock and Awe was shot from miles away. That's why hamburger arrives in little white styrofoam trays with no pictures of cows on it. That's why we've made it as a species - we've needed each other to survive, so our evolutionary morality led us to the point where we more or less share a similar set of values. And that's why I don't think the simulations will come close to reality, because few people want to see it, and many who think they do will realize that they don't.
Re:It's just evolutionary. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:It's just evolutionary. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Unpopular but interesting. (Score:3, Informative)
The source is cited but apparently you couldn't be bothered so here you go:
http://www.google.com/search?hq=Marshall+%22Men+against+fire%22
And here's an article that talks about it: http://www.historynet.com/men-against-fire-how-many-soldiers-actually-fired-their-weapons-at-the-enemy-during-the-vietnam-war.htm/print/ [historynet.com]
In a squad of 10 men, on average fewer than three ever fired their weapons in combat. Day in, day out - it did not matter how long they had been soldiers, how many months of combat they had seen, or even that the enemy was about to overrun their position. This was what the highly regarded Brigadier General Samuel Lyman Atwood Marshall, better known as S.L.A. Marshall, or 'Slam,' concluded in a series of military journal articles and in his book, Men Against Fire, about Americaâ(TM)s World War II soldiers. Marshall had been assigned as a military analyst for the U.S. Army in both the Pacific and Europe. The American, he concluded, comes 'from a civilization in which aggression, connected with the taking of life, is prohibited and unacceptable... The fear of aggression has been expressed to him so strongly and absorbed by him so deeply and pervadingly - practically with his mother's milk - that it is part of the normal man's emotional make-up. This is his great handicap when he enters combat. It stays his trigger finger even though he is hardly conscious that it is a restraint upon him.'
Re:It's just evolutionary. (Score:1, Informative)
Might I suggest the novel Only You can Save Mankind [wikipedia.org] by Terry Pratchett?
Re:Ban how to host a murder while you're at it. (Score:3, Informative)
"That's why soldiers purposely missed eachother, while using individual weapons, up until recently."
Prestigious historian SLA Marshall did a wonderful sales job on that idea, which is so emotionally appealing that it has been repeated without question.
http://warchronicle.com/us/combat_historians_wwii/marshallproblem.htm [warchronicle.com]
http://pages.slc.edu/~fsmoler/amheritagemarshall1989pagefour.htm [slc.edu]
"Lt Gen. Harry 0. Kinnard, who participated in every one of the 101st Airborne's World War II operations (and who is singled out by Marshall in several books as one of the war's most distinguished combat leaders) says, "In both World War II and in Vietnam it never came to the attention that failure to fire was a problem at any level." Gen. Bruce Clarke, who led the defense of St.-Vith and served as both commanding general-Europe and commanding general-Continental U.S., put it more strongly. Marshall's theories, he said, are "ridiculous and dangerous assertions-absolute nonsense And Gen. James PA. Gavin, who commanded the famous 82d Airborne Division during World War II, says bluntly that Marshall's claim "is absolutely false." According to Gavin, "All of our infantry fired their weapons. I know because I was there and took part."