Why Oh Why Are Games the Black Sheep of the Media Family?

Kiith

So i learned nothing from Duck Hunt? :eek:

Vegeta

Kiith wrote: »

So i learned nothing from Duck Hunt? :eek:

There are lots of valuable lessons to be learned in duck hunt, it can be a cold, cruel sport where often your dog acts the cnut

Bubs101

In terms of the ratings and why the Aussies banned those games, there is definitely an element of ease for kids to get hold of these. I remember as a kid watching South Park or trying to rent the movie had a bunch of obstacles like parents and vigilant Xtravision staff but when I wanted Chef's Luv Shack, South Park 64, GTA 2 and 3 etc. it was piss easy for whatever reason. Nobody care's about the certification on games, they do care about those on films for some reason though.

Jumpy

L31mr0d wrote: »

The guys who where used to the likes of Gears or CoD instantly started laying down covering fire when their team mates where moving, using blind fire, flanking, watching enemy movements, communicating with hand signals... etc.

I can usually tell a GoW player when they try to chainsaw me with the front of the gun while making brrrrrrr noises.

Jazzy

i can almost do a hadoken. another week id say and ill have it.
ive got my tiger uppercuts down to a tee though

L31mr0d

Jumpy wrote: »

I can usually tell a GoW player when they try to chainsaw me with the front of the gun while making brrrrrrr noises.

Yeah it's even easier to spot the Halo players, they where the ones that would run out of cover and over to me when I was lying prone and start tea bagging the back of my head.

Vegeta wrote: »

Did games teach you trigger control? How to manage recoil, check eye dominance, how to mount a gun correctly, correct standing, kneeling or prone positions, how much lead to give a clay, the bullet drop on the rifle at the distance you were shooting.

I know you say it's "common sense", but I don't think everyone will know the fundamentals before ever shooting a gun as much as someone whos had to get used to them in FPS's. It might not teach you the physical aspects such as how to handle recoil, but it does teach you to expect it. From playing games and having never fired a lot of weapons, nor seen them I could tell how much recoil to expect from them merely from having to adjust how I used those weapons in games. It also teaches you how much lead to give a clay, bullet drop and the benefits of different stances... etc

Cunny-Funt

Vegeta wrote: »

how much lead to give a clay, the bullet drop on the rifle at the distance you were shooting.

Actually these are things I've learned from games alright. As someone who's never fired a gun in my life, I can pretty much say my chances of hitting a moving target are far better due to me being a gamer, then they would be if I;d never played any games ever.

But to answer the op, theres still a hell of a lot of ignorance out there regarding 'video games' and most people still view as something only for kids. These people are idiots imo, old fashioned and simply ignorant. Its only a matter of time before people will look back and laugh at the idea that once people thought gaming was something only for kids and was looked down apon as a form of entertainment. Modern gamers are just a head of the curve.

15ish years ago people thought communicating with other people on the 'internet' was only for geeks and the action was looked down on, go back even further and the same attitude was around for those who even used a computer. Ignorance and small mindedness. Pure and simple.

5uspect

I have to agree it's down to pure ignorance.

Most commentators have never played "these games".
Hillary Clinton blabbing on about getting points for killing cops in GTA for example.
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/now-clinton-jumps-on-the-violent-videogames-bandwagon

Also, remember this?
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/are_violent_video_games

Kids and games once again!

Vegeta

L31mr0d wrote: »

I know you say it's "common sense", but I don't think everyone will know the fundamentals before ever shooting a gun as much as someone whos had to get used to them in FPS's.

Yes but an FPS is an extremely poor simulation for shooting so the aspects portrayed in game are so basic that anyone with a smidgen of intelligence or who has seen saving private ryan probably knows as much.

Such as,
Holding your breath makes you more stable, imagine who'd have thought. (Still I cant remember a game which specifically points out that you hold the breath on the exhale not the inhale)
Lying down is a more stable platform than standing, witch craft this is. (Still doesn't tell you how to position your limbs to avoid them swaying, doesn't tell you that felt recoil is worst in this position)
Moving and shooting is more inaccurate than stationary, again its not exactly a leap.
Guns have recoil

It might not teach you the physical aspects such as how to handle recoil, but it does teach you to expect it. From playing games and having never fired a lot of weapons, nor seen them I could tell how much recoil to expect from them merely from having to adjust how I used those weapons in games.

The whole point here is that you believe FPS games make people better shots but who thinks guns are without recoil? Sure games show recoil in action but every dog in the street knows a shot firearm recoils so a commoner and an FPS shooter are on level pegging here BUT assuming I'm wrong and by some miracle people forget that guns recoil what advantage will that give you in terms of accurate shooting?

From gaming you now know that guns recoil at different rates. How are you going to use that piece of information to your advantage?

[/quote]It also teaches you how much lead to give a clay[/quote]

I am trying to phrase this as non hostile as possible but this is just wrong. Unless of course the FPS you are talking about is Clay Simulator 2010 .

Knowing moving objects require lead and knowing how much lead to give a clay pigeon are worlds apart. If it were as easy as playing a few games to get it right then I'd be amazing at clay shooting.

bullet drop

So tell me what was the last game you played that answered questions like the following, for a 100 yard zero using a .308 169 grain round, how many elevation MOA would you need to adjust by for a 400 yard shot down hill at say an angle of 30 degrees?

Conveniently most FPS games I have played do not have any bullet drop bar maybe the odd secondary weapon like a grenade launcher. It seems sniper rifles perform more like lasers in most titles.

and the benefits of different stances... etc

As mentioned above that's pretty common knowledge.

Look FPS games expose you to some very basic fundamentals of shooting, a lot of which, if not all, are known by the average person.

They don't even tackle the most difficult aspect of shooting a rifle ffs, wind.

Vegeta

Cunny-Funt wrote: »

Actually these are things I've learned from games alright. As someone who's never fired a gun in my life, I can pretty much say my chances of hitting a moving target are far better due to me being a gamer, then they would be if I;d never played any games ever.

And I'm telling you that you are grossly over estimating the level of simulation in games.

Any sporty person or someone with decent hand eye co-ordination would wipe the floor with a brilliant gamer who was gracefully challenged

5uspect

When CoD 5 was released Activision had a launch promo that saw a group of "Geeks" play actual Marines, using Xbox controllers. (oh noes!)
Ultimately the Geeks did quite well while the Marines worked better as a team.
So if anything teamwork tactics may be transfered both ways.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5han3mL1pHsJPaTN2G13sw5Wul-ZA?index=0

As regards affecting gun handling ability, I think, you may as well give them water guns and send them around a paintball course. That mechanic is at least much the same.

L31mr0d

Vegeta wrote: »

Look FPS games expose you to some very basic fundamentals of shooting, a lot of which, if not all, are known by the average person.

Ok well you keep coming back to your subjective opinion that everyone knows everything about guns that someone who plays FPS's does. I disagree with this and think that gun knowledge amongst your average person who has never seen nor fired a gun is not equal to that of someone who has used simulated versions of them in games.

I am not saying that I could shoot equally as good as a professional or know all that fancy book learnin' about bullet drop, rather my base knowledge of how to use guns from the get go is higher than an average persons.

In fact when we where out shooting the Winchester Magnum 2 of the other guys there had the sight hit them square between the eyes as they didn't know how to brace the butt of the gun.

The argument is moot though, as it rests solely on your assumption about the average non-gamers knowledge of guns.

Also, not everyone knows about recoil

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfGUF8T-dUM

cherryghost

Person: You're playing waaaaay too much games, think you should take a break.

Response: Oh yeah, well you watch TV for hours on end with little or no effort to challenge yourself.



Does anyone get the first response? I mean, why is it an issue? Because its new. People need to adjust to new mediums. Remember the days that TV turned your eyes square. Never hear that anymore, do ya?

As for media coverage is to go by, part of the coldness, in my opinion, is fear. Fear of a more advantageous and communicative medium that has fast risen above the horizen in recent years? GTA IV, hookers blah blah blah blah. Hostel 2, getting his balls chopped off, then eaten. I dont think theres much of a debate over it, but the television and paper media beg to differ.

The media industry has to cop on and grow the fupp up. Theres a new media king in town, and they have to adjust to the changing landscape, not ridicule it.

Nevyn

Media don't want people to think that gaming is acceptable, they want to keep people watching TV.

NeoKubrick

Jazzy wrote: »

i can almost do a hadoken. another week id say and ill have it.
ive got my tiger uppercuts down to a tee though

I've told my brother that I will one day land a shoryuken on him and that he'd better be ready to block high. He's seven, though. I may whiff it.


Gaming is currently the black sheep of the media family, because it is a relatively new medium and is now a financial juggernaut. There can be only so much money available for entertainment industries to exist on, and now Gaming takes a large share of that and it has put a squeeze on other industries and their jobs. That's just a natural progression, and if anything, it's probably a good indicator for the success of the medium. Most of the media criticizing Gaming will have no interest in it or profit from it, and it probably is against their own interests to not criticize it.

Censorship & in-game violence is an easy ground on which to criticize games, because it's such a reassuring and self-serving thought to think that it's someone else's fault. In fact, the argument for censorship and bans is so infatuating that intelligent gamers regularly accept it, even now in this thread. I remember going against five, what I considered pillars of the community, intelligent members because they agreed with censorship and I was so astounding by their ignorance, I didn't even bother to counter their arguments after my first reply (interesting discussion: here. The argument is ridiculous, of course. To accept it is to accept that alcohol is the cause of bad behaviour: alcohol isn't a cause; it's inanimate. People are the cause of behaviour, and use inanimate objects as an outlet for their expressions, and how destructive or non- that expression is, is as a result of the person's personality.

Participation in Gaming is the exact same as other mediums: it's just that there are different factors to be considered. This is a part of the pro-censorship argument that violence in Gaming is worse than violence in Film, because the gamers participates in the violence and the viewer doesn't. It's a fallacy. In Irréversible, there is a long shot of a visceral rape scene. Neither I nor most viewers can stomach watching the scene the first time (and I skip it anytime I go back to watch the film), because viewers participate in a film and viewers identify with characters. In that scene, the viewer can only participate as the rapist or the person being raped, and naturally and healthily, most viewers identify with the person being raped and are therefore disgusted by scene and it's hard to watch. Noe's direction even toys with the viewer by introducing a stranger who stumbles upon the rape, and the viewer immediately thinks that they can now participate in the film as the 'Hero', the person who stops or kills the rapist and saves the woman. The stranger walks away, and the viewer has now participated as a coward and a person being raped, and this is what makes the scene hard to watch. Participation is required with any medium.

Zillah

L31mr0d wrote: »

Also, not everyone knows about recoil

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfGUF8T-dUM

What the hell was that gun in the second half? A lot of those guys looked like they knew what they were doing and still got thrown around.

Cunny-Funt

L31mr0d made all the points I was going to make anyway so I'll just say:

Vegeta wrote: »

And I'm telling you that you are grossly over estimating the level of simulation in games.

Any sporty person or someone with decent hand eye co-ordination would wipe the floor with a brilliant gamer who was gracefully challenged

All I'm saying is, compared to myself, without ever playing any game, versus me with my experience with military sims and so forth. The gamer me would have far higher a chance of hitting a moving target over the non gamer me.

The concept of bullet leading, is something I learned from games. How to use a scope and so forth also. I'm not saying I'd be a marksman, I'm just saying my chances of hitting the target would be higher. I dunno how you can argue with that point.

Sabre0001

Cunny-Funt wrote: »

All I'm saying is, compared to myself, without ever playing any game, versus me with my experience with military sims and so forth. The gamer me would have far higher a chance of hitting a moving target over the non gamer me.

The concept of bullet leading, is something I learned from games. How to use a scope and so forth also. I'm not saying I'd be a marksman, I'm just saying my chances of hitting the target would be higher. I dunno how you can argue with that point.

See I'm not sure. As kids, we can hit moving targets with footballs (cars, other kids, etc) and that's not through playing games - you can see the examples of having to lead targets in other elements...that or it's just natural kid cruelty that makes it instinctive!

5uspect

Zillah wrote: »

What the hell was that gun in the second half? A lot of those guys looked like they knew what they were doing and still got thrown around.

It's a BFG.

Vegeta

L31mr0d wrote: »

Ok well you keep coming back to your subjective opinion that everyone knows everything about guns that someone who plays FPS's does. I disagree with this and think that gun knowledge amongst your average person who has never seen nor fired a gun is not equal to that of someone who has used simulated versions of them in games.

I am not saying that I could shoot equally as good as a professional or know all that fancy book learnin' about bullet drop, rather my base knowledge of how to use guns from the get go is higher than an average persons.

Your initial point was that because you had played games you'd be a better shot than someone who hadn't. I am strongly disagreeing with that based on first hand experience of bringing both gaming and non gaming friends shooting with me.

I am not saying you wouldn't have more knowledge about guns (different from knowledge on how to shoot) such as what certain guns look like, what guns different armies use. The supposed "power" of certain guns. Magazine capacities etc

In fact when we where out shooting the Winchester Magnum 2 of the other guys there had the sight hit them square between the eyes as they didn't know how to brace the butt of the gun.

Just a pointer in case you are shooting big calibres again. The important factor for "scope eye" is inadequate eye relief. Even if the gun is braced perfectly but you don't give the proper amount of eye relief you will get stung. Have done it myself with a .270 and a cheap **** scope on too high a magnification (eye relief reduces with magnification). Of course if you don't brace the gun AND use crap eye relief then you are going to get thumped (like the girl kneeling in the grey hoody in the video below, bad idea to keel too if you're worried about recoil as you are less able to soak it up, as said earlier its even worse in prone).

The argument is moot though, as it rests solely on your assumption about the average non-gamers knowledge of guns.

Also, not everyone knows about recoil

You are not seeing my point at all

My initial point is that games teach little about technique that isn't common knowledge.

But lets say I concede that point for the sake of argument.

My main point is knowing the theory of something and the physical ability to do it are miles and miles apart. Do you accept this?

That video highlights my point perfectly actually, practically all of them had horrible technique, stance (weight distribution) grip and so on. Please tell me a game that has outlined for you how to do any of those things? I cant think of any games that do.

Everyone in that video could have known about recoil and been expecting it but because they don't know how to prepare for it they get hurt. (The people shooting one handed are asking for trouble and being completely reckless so I'll exclude them from any reasonable conversation) But again my point is just because you know about something does not mean you know anything about how to deal with it.

For example when shooting shotguns especially clay shooting about 70% of your weight is on your leading foot, your trailing leg acting as a shock absorber and counter balance. I have never seen a game mention this, I know it through experience and tuition.

The people shooting the 700 nitro express or whatever it is seem to be experienced (they obviously work at a facility firing guns) and yet they still get caught out by the ridiculous recoil.

So I ask (about just recoil as an example) why would a gamer be able to physically overcome it with proper technique as compared to a person who is handed a gun and told "This will recoil a nice bit" What game teaches you how to handle recoil?

There are lots of games that show recoil happening but how many teach you the right stance, weight distribution, grip, scope etiquette to deal with it?

Cunny-Funt wrote: »

The concept of bullet leading, is something I learned from games.

Really I learned it from childhood trying to throw things at moving things

How to use a scope and so forth also.

In fairness you mention military sims so maybe you have played the odd game which is a pretty realistic simulation of shooting a rifle. But if you are talking about Counter Strike or Call of Duty then the only thing you know about scopes is that you look in one end and when the cross hair is on the target you click a mouse or pull a trigger.

I'm not saying I'd be a marksman, I'm just saying my chances of hitting the target would be higher.

Why?

You haven't practised any of the actual skills that make someone a good shot.

I dunno how you can argue with that point.

Quite easily really because moving a cursor with a mouse or stick is as close to shooting as bashing buttons is to boxing.