Violent games: Unreal means just that

Feature: The Manhunt II ban

With excitement about the forthcoming Unreal Tournament III building and other chart-topping games like Call Of Duty 4 doing incredibly well, the question of whether you can pick up real battle skills from these games - and what effect that has on a gamer - is back on the agenda. I'm still on the fence about the effects of violence, but a painful experience shattered any illusion that I was learning real-world skills.

Several years ago I worked in an office full of twenty-something geeks. We managed to network all of our computers together so we could play the original Unreal Tournament against each other. Unreal is a first person shooter (an FPS as the kids say), where you pick up big guns and try to kill everybody else or just the other team, depending on what style of game you are playing. We ended up playing this every lunchtime and every evening after work for a couple of months as obsession took hold.

One of the people I worked with had been a Marine before he went on to the natural next thing of selling online ads. You would expect somebody that previously had a career in the art of killing would be fantastic at a computer game that was all about guns. He was terrible, really terrible. You would find him in a corner looking the wrong way while you crept up on him and 'fragged' his character. He once managed to kill himself with the sniper rifle, a feat that none of the rest of us could reproduce, even when we tried.

We mocked him about being being so very bad at Unreal depite having been in the Marines. One day this changed: the day a load of us went to play paintball. This fellow managed to show a large number of us that computer games are definitely not real and nor do they give you real-world abilities. Many of us believed that the hours spent playing Unreal would give us the advantage in what is essentially a live version of the game. They didn't, and the paintball welts served as a reminder of two important lessons. One: game skills do not equal real skills. Two: never mock an ex-Marine. The very name of Unreal Tournament should have given us a clue.

Comments

[j zilla]

in didn't used to be a gangstuh till i played FPS.. now i roll deep with the tek.

[Shewy]

Maybe no real world skills as we know battle right now. With changes in the technology of battle there may be a day when we actually use drones that would be controlled at some level by a human. This may well be a scenario in which gaming experience could come in handy.

The military is already using robots with on board weaponry to "scout" a building and the like.

[j.spicer]

This is an awesome story i had to chuckle as soon as paintball was mentioned because i knew the marine would be much better in the real world. I think Day of Defeat would be a better judge of how realistic battle is. You cant just run and gun in the real world because there is no respawn.

[E]

You learned that there is no such thing as an ex-Marine!

[E]

Painful Lesson #1

No such thing as an ex-Marine!

[Daniel Turner]

Interesting article, although it would be interesting to see if this marine was any better at a more simulation based game, rather than a game like unreal which is very arcade based.

[A Winchester]

I dunno - I reckon if it was taken seriously enough gaming could transpire into real world tactics. With the impending arrival (i expect) of full body suits that totally immerse the gamer in the unreal world, i wouldn't expect it to be too long before this sort of thing creeps into military training - virtual worlds as training for the real thing in full motion action.

[jamiman]

racing games can teach driving skills(gears etc) and gun games can improve reaction times, so its not all bad

[Anon]

I think it's quite silly to believe that video games would make you an expert marksman. The ability to precisely flick your wrist doesn't give you the ability to target a real gun, or deal with real recoil.

However, I do believe that the strategies employed in real life warfare can be utilized in video games. However, since in most video games, when you get shot in the leg, you can keep running... I don't think those strategies work the other way around.

[Hoorah]

"Former marine", not ex-marine. Once a marine, always a marine.

[Stryfe01]

Well met. Why can't others in the media realize this? the Maryland Sniper case a few years ago anyone? The American media started airing information about how the young Malvo trained by playing Halo. Really? How can you learn how to set your aperture, calculate distance and wind speed from Halo? I suppose playing Halo also makes us numb to seeing someone's head explode in real life. I suppose it also prepares us for facing the consequences when caught and facing life or death in prison.

[some medical student]

This field needs more resarch.
It is obvious that games which are dedicated to scoring as many "frags" as possible will hardly improve any of the players abilities aside from coordination, reflexes and visual recognition.

Yet, there are a lot of so-called "tactic shooters" - equally scorned in e.g. Germany as simple FPS - at which the player, together with his team, is likely to be more successful in the game, if he applies real field-tactics, as far as the game allows it.

The question is:
If real military background can prove to be advantageous (as long as the player can apply it), why would it not work the other way round?

As regards that highly manipulative article above, I must admonish the author because he obviously missed the lack of scientific proof behind that "experiment".
It is obvious that the Ex-Marine was not skilled enough at the game itself, a disadvantage totally veiling his martial knowledge.

To conclude, the article shows nothing more than the author's mere ignorance of scientific work. In any other case the article reveals a poor lobbying attempt on behalf of the computer game industries and their customers, the players. (Anyway, the latter badly needed it.)

Thanks

I would be glad, if the author replies to my post.

[some medical student]

This field needs more resarch.
It is obvious that games which are dedicated to scoring as many "frags" as possible will hardly improve any of the players abilities aside from coordination, reflexes and visual recognition.

Yet, there are a lot of so-called "tactic shooters" - equally scorned in e.g. Germany as simple FPS - at which the player, together with his team, is likely to be more successful in the game, if he applies real field-tactics, as far as the game allows it.

The question is:
If real military background can prove to be advantageous (as long as the player can apply it), why would it not work the other way round?

As regards that highly manipulative article above, I must admonish the author because he obviously missed the lack of scientific proof behind that "experiment".
It is obvious that the Ex-Marine was not skilled enough at the game itself, a disadvantage totally veiling his martial knowledge.

To conclude, the article shows nothing more than the author's mere ignorance of scientific work. In any other case the article reveals a poor lobbying attempt on behalf of the computer game industries and their customers, the players. (Anyway, the latter badly needed it.)

Thanks

I would be glad, if the author replies to my post.

[some medical student]

This field needs more resarch.
It is obvious that games which are dedicated to scoring as many "frags" as possible will hardly improve any of the players abilities aside from coordination, reflexes and visual recognition.

Yet, there are a lot of so-called "tactic shooters" - equally scorned in e.g. Germany as simple FPS - at which the player, together with his team, is likely to be more successful in the game, if he applies real field-tactics, as far as the game allows it.

The question is:
If real military background can prove to be advantageous (as long as the player can apply it), why would it not work the other way round?

As regards that highly manipulative article above, I must admonish the author because he obviously missed the lack of scientific proof behind that "experiment".
It is obvious that the Ex-Marine was not skilled enough at the game itself, a disadvantage totally veiling his martial knowledge.

To conclude, the article shows nothing more than the author's mere ignorance of scientific work. In any other case the article reveals a poor lobbying attempt on behalf of the computer game industries and their customers, the players. (Anyway, the latter badly needed it.)

Thanks

I would be glad, if the author replies to my post.

[cberry]

I've played all of the Unreal games over the years (amongst other FPS games), and, if a game was capable of teaching you something about the real world, /Unreal .*/ definitely wouldn't be that game. Unreal typically relies on speed, armor, and accuracy to do well while games like Rainbow 6 and Return to Castle Wolfenstein rely on a bit more tactics and using cover appropriately (which carry over to paintball etc. pretty well).

I would say the single biggest advantage gained by playing FPS is environmental awareness. The faster the game, the better you are taught. The games cause you to notice things in the real world because when you are playing you are observing every little detail (missile, bad guy, friend, etc.). This is very useful in many real world situations.

The second biggest advantage is reacting to those stimuli quickly. If you see a guy about to turn and shoot (real life or game), then I think a good reaction would be to get some cover or perhaps shoot first. Games teach players rapid decision making in regards to situations that could be duplicated in real life.

$.02

Clay

[Vermincelli]

Anyone who thinks a video game can teach combat skills is either looking for an excuse to blame games instead of personal responsibility or just basically clueless.
With a computer game it's still 2 dimensional, and you are limited to what the game's code can do.
It is true that some games are used by the military for training, but that's to hone skills learned in real training, not to teach those skills.
As one who has both combat experience as well as working with game companies designing games, games are nothing more than recreation and are designed to be fun, not realistic. If a game was designed to be as close as possible to real combat, no one would play it.

[nichevo]

Unreal Tournament is about as relevant to real life as Pac Man. Some more reaslistic games, like Operation Flashpoint or America's Army might be more of a learning experience. Of course, no game can ever match proper training in the real world.

[PT]

Good article. I've been a game developer for the last 14 years, and I thought being an expert gamer and game developer would somehow help me at paintball ... I couldn't have been more wrong.

Most of the media loves to act like first-person shooters are some sort of "training" for "cold-blooded killers." The truth is exactly the opposite.

If you took the average FPS gamer and put him on the battlefield (assuming you could get him out of his chair in the first place, and teach him not to be afraid of the big glowing yellow thing in the sky), he'd ask you where he respawned when he died, and where he could get the stim paks to give him back +50 health when he took damage.

[Peter Crabtree]

You raise an interesting point. But I wonder why it is that something that appears realistic can be so demonstrated to be so unrealistic. Is this because the amount of control the game passes onto the players is not as great as we are lead to believe? Are we merely chosing from possible options that have a result pre-defined by the games programmers? Something that we seem to be able to easily manage within a controlled environment when transferred to the real world fails so rapidly.

As Jeremey Clarkson showed on the laguna seca corkscrew in a Topgear - taking a blind corner at 100kmh is possible in the confines of our bedroom but only a handful of people could do this in reality. When we try these things in reality we have to remember that we haven't had years of training and we can't just select to restart.

[Fredrik Ljung]

Some games are better than others at teaching real world behavior to gamers. For those interested in realistic gaming i would really recommend the Battlefield 2 mod Project Reality.

[tom.hepburn]

You seem to be on exactly the same wavelength as the comic "PVP". It has just started a new story arc about this very subject.

http://www.pvponline.com/2008/02/20/lets-shoot-sumthin/

Hmmm... coincidence?

[Noelio]

LOL!

Entertaining read.

Maybe an FPS on the Wii might provide the necessary simulation. However in real life if we could do everything using a 360 or ps3 controller all would be easy and good. :)

[Darren]

Having 6 years military experience, I can safely say that even the smallest amount of professional training will give you a huge edge over 'civilians'.

I went to a paintball day with an ex girlfriend and her workmates, none of whom had ever painballed before. It took 3 games of complete dominance from my team before they cottoned on to use some form of cover, and not to just talk to each other whilst standing in a group during the game.

[Scott]

When these games are used in the military. They are played much differently. rules are used, and the game is played in a realistic manner. In a game people take changes that only a fool would take in real life. That is the difference. In that way it does help. I was using early simulations in the Army in the mid 80's. from simulating a firing range, to calling artillery fire, and much more. You would pull your hair out playing by strict rules. And so would the people in that office that were good playing games. In real life using real guns that marine would waste all of you. Or at least have the best odds. I was a sniper in real life. firing one single shot is an all day job, in the heat, in mud, dirt sand. crawling all day hiding positioning to fire one single bullet. Not running around trying to take out as many people as possible. you have to flip that analogy around in reverse.

[Lance]

I teach combat shooting (real world, both handgun and rifle) and I like playing shooting games on the PC. So I think I have a valid perspective on the issue.

To shoot well, you need to learn some basic skills, some of those skills involve "muscle memory"--learning to do something until you can do it without thinking. The muscle memory for the trigger and mag release on a handgun is different from the muscle memory you get from using a mouse. Most games automatically change mags for you, and you don't worry so much about remembering how many rounds you have left. The procedures are also different (or non-existent), since you never get a jammed gun you have to clear in a video game. Also, in the real world trigger control is very important, but it does not translate well to a mouse and vice-versa.

In the real world you learn the basics of shooting, then you need to learn how to move to cover and later, how to work as a team with other people. If you have learned to do this in the real world with real (or simulated) firearms and other team members, then you can also translate that into a computer game with those same people and actually get some good practice. But it's hard to do it the other way around.

In most of the computer games I have played (especially multi-player) there is absolutely no teamwork between players, and people play in "video game mode"--they run and shoot until they are hit, then the "reset" and run into the middle of a firefight again. That is NOT how you do things in the real world--at least you don't do it that way more than once... Even so-called "teams" in online games very rarely truly provide cover for each other. They usually amount to a group of people who play as individuals, which is very different from a real fire team where you realize your life depends on your team members, and their lives depend on you watching over them.

When I've taught people real world shooting skills, if they have played First Person Shooter games I have had to help them "unlearn" all their bad habits from playing video games. It takes a lot of work to turn them into a real team player, they always want to be a "headhunter" and go out on their own and shoot as many people as possible, and therefore putting themselves in too much danger. In the real world that just gets you killed quickly.

I will admit that certain games (like Grand Theft Auto) have had a de-sensitizing effect on me. After playing a few hours of GTA I noticed as I walked into a convenience store that I had to tell myself "No, I can't start beating on people just because I'm annoyed with them." But I've also noticed the same effect from watching "The Sopranos", so it's not unique to video games. Video games have a bad reputation for encouraging violence, but TV and movies can be just as bad, if not worse. Having a permit to carry a weapon, and carrying one every time I leave the house, I've become very aware of my moods and how I'm choosing to deal with situations. My own personal experience is that two hours spent watching "The Sopranos" does slightly more to encourage a violent response in the real world than two hours spent playing Grand Theft Auto.

If you need to train for combat, because you are in the military, or you are a police officer, you really need to train yourself to immediately handle problems in a problem->solution format. "Because A has happened, I must now immediately do B." When you train yourself to do that to the point it becomes instinct it can help you survive difficult situations, your first response will always be what you have practiced over and over in training. But you then also have a responsibility to teach yourself that you should not handle problems in the same way as the characters on "The Sopranos". You learn how to respond to problems by observing how the people in your environment handle them. You may learn to handle problems like the other people on your fire team, or like your fellow police officers. If you spend a lot of time watching TV shows like "The Sopranos", especially a long stretch at a time, then that becomes your environment and it also teaches you potential ways of dealing with issues.

The important thing to remember is that your abilities are limited by your training--if you have poor training because you've always played video games without real world combat instruction you'll get limited results from further time spent playing the game. If the time isn't spent focused on improving certain skills, then it won't translate into the real world. And real world muscle memory doesn't translate between games and real firearms, and vice-versa. Although teamwork can. Also, enough time spent watching certain television shows and movies can have an effect on your attitude and can change how you handle problems, so choose wisely what you encode into your psyche.

[Kangas-Khan]

while you might not be able to use video games in thye real world of combat right now eventually it might come in handy, as it is i am a frequent halo 3/call of duty 4 player and it has taught a lot of very useful things- hand-eye coordination-patience self control, also it hs really made me consider tactics should i camp wit the sniper or move and have a friend spot/protect me grab a shotgun and charge or wait for them toss a frag or jump into the mix with my assault rifle there are times or all of these tactics and in that playing video games might help you in real combat situations.

[Sean]

Oh my god...?

WELL DONE!! -.-

Who would have thought an entirely unrealistic game where you can jump several dozen feet in the air wouldn't give you any real life skills!!!

Try playing a war Sim (or something close), like COD or something which is actually set in this time period for a couple of years then do your currently fatally flawed investigation again.

Noobs.

[ikaruga]

This is so misleading it's retarded -- you need good coordination skills to be good at FPS games. Hence, the getting stuck in the corner. Some people because of the way that they learn can't navigate a 3D virtual world. Hence, the getting stuck in the corner. (My office mate has that problem even though she's a genius.)

What video games are good at is getting you used to being agressive and pulling the trigger. This is invaluable for a soldier. Something like 80% didn't want to pull the trigger in WWII. But video games *desensitize* you.

[JRed]

On the Maryland Sniper: How can you learn how to set your aperture, calculate distance and wind speed from Halo?

If you recall, it turned out that no sniper skills were involved. The shots were all under 250 yards using a red-dot scope attached to a standard .223 Bushmaster rifle. Since he was cowering in the trunk of a car, he didn't have to be very far away.

[Dom]

The British Army uses arcade-style simulators for training but we usually find that the best people on these are often those who find actual combat drills most difficult. One of the biggest parts of being an infantry soldier is stamina; being able to run for miles then operate your rifle with precision and speed. Until we get this in computer games it's never going to be like the real thing.

[Mike Y.]

Until "bunny hopping" becomes a viable, real-world tacktic, there will be no real connection between FPS's and RL.

[[R-PUB]MrD]

Most FPS games are designed for the mass market. It takes a niche modification like the Reality Mod for Battlefield 2 (windows pc game) to target a specific group of gamers, where we know the mass market will most likely run away when they try to play.

The first thing to do is to persuade all the gamers looking for more, to look into Mods for games. ArmA isn't what it is today without the plethora of mods available for it, many of which go towards turning a mass market game more into realism.

Take a look at the indoor computerised ranges teaching our modern soldiers to engage in section strength, the armoured simulators used to teach driving and gunning vehicles. They could hardly be called exciting. Realism isn't for the masses, or we might see a lot of shaking gamers reporting to hospitals with PTSD like symptoms!

[RM]

I have just read this article and it made me smile.

I am in fact the person who David refers to in his article and I would like to state for the record that, whilst I admit to not being in the same league to the gamers who so readily kicked my posterior at the workplace and I did indeed manage to kill myself via a number of perplexing incidents, I wasn't that terrible! I think simply "not good" would be a fair reflection. ;-)

[ibz]

sorry to burst your bubble...but there is no way to shoot yourself with a sniper rifle in the original unreal tournament..

[John Sheridan]

Is this marine any good at games at all? As if the answer is no then the example is flawed... alongside that if you and your friends are a load of geeks as you say in the article, you can hardly expect to compete in a physical activity with a fit marine... Try a sporty type person who plays FPS alot and then there is an article to be discussed

[Tony smales]

I think the Marine is bound to be a lot fitter and tougher thn PC couch-potatoes! He can probably shoot straight too ;)

[Yrktusk]

To balance this out, I believe flight simulators ARE used to train real (civil and military) pilots.

But isn't it stupefyingly OBVIOUS that for most other games that don't accurately mimic the physical sensations/techniques/pressures of the subject matter that it's "unreal"(istic).

Just cause I am good at PES doesn't mean I can do a double-scissor IRL like Robinho, or be any good in a rumble cause I own at Fight Night.

Nor that I could calmly fight my way through a room of flesh-hungry zombies cause I aced it through Resident Evil, or have 3 women on the go (in the same night) cause I push the right buttons in Sims 2 or Leisure Suit Larry.

But we can dream!

[john cowle]

Posted by: cberry | Feb 20, 2008 10:38:47 PM

"Anyone who thinks a video game can teach combat skills is either looking for an excuse to blame games instead of personal responsibility or just basically clueless..."

I believe this is Spot-on. I avidly play FPS’s out of these mainly COD online which promises a more 'realistic' gaming experience. The limits of this realism are that you have to work as a team, and duck. I think that’s about as far as any commercially successful FPS will go, and it’s great, and tactical, But these tactics will not span to real combat. I do not feel fear playing COD, or fatigue, I do not exist in a real combat environment, my gun is not physical, and heavy. I am sitting with a cup of tea, streaming iTunes, and one click away from a head shot. FPS's, at this time, can help team play but won’t give a individual a combat edge bar maybe self-confidence.

It is my opinion that media types who blame atrocities on games are deluded. The chief inciting reason for a civilian in real life blowing another mans head off is deep psychological unbalance, not Grand Theft Auto. Taking away the game, and for the sake of argument film, literature, and indeed all other external potentially influential mediums would not make an individual calm and balanced.

I think some of these journalists should relax with a cup of coco and a a violent game of Doom.

[Bothan]

This amuses me...
1st the military already use FPS games to teach and recruit - the most famous example being America's Army - which if you play you will see has drastically different style of play to something like unreal tournament (which is more gladitorial combat than soldiering). America's Army is both a recruiting tool, an educational tool (public) and has "locked" portions for use only by the American Military (maybe not for combat but for others).
2ndly Game skills are already beeing seen transfered to the military - not in conventional rifle fire etc but in use of technology - thus why challenger 2 controls bear a canny similarity to the PS2 controller- the American Stryker and other remote controlled gun turrets - fired from inside the vechile. These have seen high accuracy and pickup from troops used to playing ps2 etc in their offtime and youth.
Interesting times ahead - now that armed bots are deployed to iraq and drones are armed...

The TSA (Part of the US Homeland Security) has just bought a bunch of simulators to train staff (including pilots) about firearms and how to respond to threats.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/TSA+Purchases+12+Interactive+Training+Simulators+from+Arotech-a0116800433

Yes there is a cross over.

The difference being that each is actually designed to fulfill a different purpose. One is for entertainment and the other education.

I'd imagine the price tags will differ somewhat too!

[Gamer]

Unreal is certainly a fast paced game...I don't think of it as violent as some slow paced ones, I think it's arcade feel doesn't make it gory.

[James Williamson]

I had a house-mate who read "The Art of War" by Sun-Tzu and he claimed this help him play a world of warcraft style game. However, perhaps it was just a placebo effect?

[Tokyoyo]

What I found about playing lots of Ghost Recon and Call of Duty was the sense of becoming desensitized. After a few hundred kills, it becomes second-nature.
What people also forget is the AI in these games differs from actual people. The true measure of a realistic wargame is whether the AI is able to scare the **** out of you.

[Iroquois Pliskin]

Obviously you can't train to aim and shoot actual rifles with video games, but they can be used to teach battlefield tactics and teamwork within a squad.