Gaming and Real World Combat Tactics

[Arnoxthe1]

So as we all know, the news media are raising a stink (again) about violent video games, claiming they're murder simulators. Now, it's been obviously claimed by many that video games do not teach any actual combat skills to people as they are wholly unrealistic in many ways. I'd like to play the devils advocate here and counter this a little.

A little disclaimer though that I'm arguing this as someone who actually loves guns and violent first person shooters. I am merely stating these things for accuracy so we don't look like total idiots when we defend these things.

Anyway. So while it is true that games today do not teach you how to aim accurately with a gun, how to aim quickly with it, how to competently reload it, maintain it, or etc., they CAN teach military tactics and quick thinking. The most immediate example for this that comes to mind is ARMA. Especially in multiplayer. Barring that, there's also Insurgency. Also a Multiplayer game. Going on the single-player side, there's Rainbow Six 3 and Far Cry 2 on Infamous, although FC2 is of course one of the more unrealistic games for this sort of thing. Having said that, on Infamous, you are just as weak as everyone else, and getting hit at all is BAD. Not just that, the AI is very competent and will try to flank you constantly.

It is through these games that you can learn some combat tactics and good habits. First and foremost, stealth is practically REQUIRED if you want to survive. Second is that a well-coordinated group to infiltrate with is mandatory if you can get one. These games have also taught me how effective snipers can be, how to clear corners safely, to watch the ammo in my magazine, to conserve my ammo, to use grenades intelligently, to always get the first strike, to watch my sightlines, to blindfire to get an opening, to know what a good position is, to always be in a good position, and etc.

Now here's the thing. The piece of shit scumbags that actually go out and do the shootings don't actually seem to play these more realistic games, or if they do, they aren't employing these tactics at all. Another thing is that it's too late. These games are already out in the wild, and to try to take them off the market will only make them even more popular. Again, I'm only stating these things for accuracy's sake. It's important that we know what we're arguing here.

 

[Arnoxthe1]

We can?t censor and ban everything because of a few mentally deficient people. The problems with our society stem far, far, far deeper than violent video games. It?s just a sadly convenient scapegoat for the various public figureheads to use so they don?t have to bother trying to acknowledge, address and remedy our greater social ills.

Besides, hasn?t there been an inverse correlation in the last decade or so between violent crimes per capita and sales of violent video games?

Why yes, yes it appears so. [https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/04/19/as-video-game-sales-climb-year-over-year-violent-crime-continues-to-fall/amp/]

Chances are facts will be of secondary concern in the face of the routine knee jerk emotionally charged calls for action. Our culture is unraveling and our leaders are doing nothing more than applying bandaids to leaves when they should be looking into the ground they fall on.

 

[CaitSeith]

Hide-and-seek teaches better stealth tactics than any commercial game. Are we going to forbid kids of playing hide-and-seek? There are very few games that can teach any combat skill that can be applicable in real world combat (and most of those games aren't commercial ones). Most combat skills that players learn from action games apply well only when playing other action games. Besides, gamers have a tendency of not wanting to apply what they learn from games (even non-combat skills) on the real world (what happens in gaming, stays in gaming).

 

[Arnoxthe1]

There are very few games that can teach any combat skill that can be applicable in real world combat (and most of those games aren't commercial ones).

Again, I disagree very much. How did I learn to clear corners and to find viable positions? How did I learn that stealth is the ONLY way to succeed at all, especially if going it alone? I learned it somewhere and it certainly wasn't from Banjo-Kazooie or Lord of the Rings.

Besides, gamers have a tendency of not wanting to apply what they learn from games (even non-combat skills) on the real world (what happens in gaming, stays in gaming).

This I agree with, though I already stated this in the OP.

 

[Smithnikov_v1legacy]

More the inverse with me, I actually used a lot of SWAT team tactics and principles in Jagged Alliance and X-Com (both the original and remake) with quite a bit of success.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Real world combat tactics don't come into play in mass shootings because mass shootings almost always take place in "gun free zones" where combat tactics aren't necessary because there's no one there that can defend themselves. You don't have to think about cover and proper movement when you're the only one with a gun blasting away into a crowd.

Mass shooters are cowards, and they either surrender or kill themselves at the first sign of actual armed resistance.

There's no "tactics" required to shoot into a group of unarmed people, so nothing that a video game can possibly each you about combat tactics is in any way applicable to these scenarios.

 

[fix-the-spade]

Real world combat tactics don't come into play in mass shootings because mass shootings almost always take place in "gun free zones" where combat tactics aren't necessary because there's no one there that can defend themselves. You don't have to think about cover and proper movement when you're the only one with a gun blasting away into a crowd.

Or there are armed guards present, but the confusion of the situation makes it nigh impossible for them to do anything truly effective.

Something that games can never really portray the time required to figure out what's happening and organise a response. Even if every school in the world had it's own private SWAT team it would still take them a couple of minutes to figure out what was happening, where it was happening and formulate a plan. By that point the majority of the shooting is over anyway, they can't just look at the overhead map and choose a spawn point.

In fact that's something I don't think any game has ever tried to face up to, the difficulty and confusion of being thrown into combat unexpectedly and surrounded by terrified civilians. I'm not sure any game ever will.

 

[sXeth]

In fact that's something I don't think any game has ever tried to face up to, the difficulty and confusion of being thrown into combat unexpectedly and surrounded by terrified civilians. I'm not sure any game ever will.

For the vast majority of people, I don't think they could. its the same reason horror games are a niche, the majority of players are always aware that they're playing a game, completely isolated from actual dangers.

Anyhow, to take one glaring example from the original post. Stealth. Yeah, sightlines and all that. But there's millions of tiny noises, reflections, shadows and the like that don't exist in games (in anything resembling the fidelity of the actual world). Nevermind the unsimulatable stuff like feeling a draft from an opened door. Or the opposite side, where you now an enemy combatant is coming, your adrenaline is pushed up, your heart rates off the charts. Thats going to screw with your awareness of things, even in professionals with years of actual combat experience.

 

[Saelune]

Alot of people who oppose violent video games, support gun ownership.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

Alot of people who oppose violent video games, support gun ownership.

And a lot of people who think video game cause sexism/racism/homophobia/classicism/colorism are now saying its absurd to say video games cause violence, who ever said games can influence at all?!?!

There are hypocrites on both sides. What's your point?

 

[Saelune]

Alot of people who oppose violent video games, support gun ownership.

And a lot of people who think video game cause sexism/racism/homophobia/classicism/colorism are now saying its absurd to say video games cause violence, who ever said games can influence at all?!?!

There are hypocrites on both sides. What's your point?

Are they though? Or are you assuming those are the same people? Cause I can point to examples of mine, such as Trump.

Plus that someone can advocate guns claim to oppose violence is directly hypocritical. Like, you cannot support guns and pretend you oppose violent killing simulators, cause if anything, they should support that. The whole mentality of arming teachers for example is so they can use violence to kill students who try to shoot up a school.

Sure, there are most definately going to be people who claim all games make people bigoted, but yet think the idea it makes them violent absurd. How many of them are lawmakers? How many of them are lobbyists? How many of them are President of the US?

 

[Hawk of Battle]

Real world combat tactics don't come into play in mass shootings because mass shootings almost always take place in "gun free zones" where combat tactics aren't necessary because there's no one there that can defend themselves. You don't have to think about cover and proper movement when you're the only one with a gun blasting away into a crowd.

Mass shooters are cowards, and they either surrender or kill themselves at the first sign of actual armed resistance.

There's no "tactics" required to shoot into a group of unarmed people, so nothing that a video game can possibly each you about combat tactics is in any way applicable to these scenarios.

This.

Exactly what "tactics" or training are these people supposed to be learning from these "murder simulators?"
How to move and shoot on the run? Aiming with a pair of joysticks is totally different than using your own arms and legs to move and aim whilst also controlling your breathing.
How to take cover and camouflage oneself in the environment? Nope, they pull out a a gun and start shooting indiscriminately into a crowd, no need for cover there.
How to properly aim, reload, maintain and even simply operate their weapon? Nope, you generally press a single button to perform a full reload, which always magically pulls fresh magazines from nowhere, you never suffer blockages or need to clean a weapon, and marksmanship principles are never, ever needed in games.
How to track moving targets so as to hit them over distances? Nope, most of these gunmen are firing in extremely close ranges, and most videogame guns are hitscan, no need to account for bullet drop or anything else, just line up a crosshair that floats magically in the perfect centre of your vision at all times and press a button, which you don't have in real life.
How to account for the recoil of your weapon and adjust your stance/grip appropriately? Nope, no recoil on a controller.

I can't think of a single thing that you can actually learn and then apply to the real world that helps make you a better shooter. Firing guns in a videogame is so far removed from real life, most operations are done automatically, so many things are streamlined and made easier, and the situations of say, being a soldier or a super-badass near immortal that can take multiple bullets to the face before dying, is nothing like reality.

The sad fact is, you just don't need that much training to pull out a gun in a crowded place and start killing people. Guns are fairly straightforward to mechanically operate, and though with actual training you can perform better over greater ranges, most of these people who go on murder sprees do so at extremely close ranges, so you don't need to be a particularly good shot to kill a lot of people clumped together in a group. You'll likely find that most gunmen got themselves a weapon, practiced firing it a few times at a firing range or in the woods or wherever, to get a general feel for the weapon and how it works, and that's all the training they need to do damage. If you then go and pull that gun out in a cinema or a school and pull the trigger 10-15 times in a minute or so, you're probably going to hit someone, maybe several. You don't need videogames for that.

 

[Arnoxthe1]

I wonder if anyone actually read the OP.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

I wonder if anyone actually read the OP.

I read the OP but I can honestly say that nothing I played prior to joining the Army (including America's Army) helped me all that much when it came to combat training. Even the most realistic game is very far removed from the actual thing (which holds true for the difference between training and actual combat) and there's very little to learn. The examples you make in the OP, like conserving ammo, importance of snipers etc. are theoretical basics that you learn in the first few days of military combat training.

The physicality of combat, if nothing else, means that all those computer games you've played are no better than reading a book, watching a realistic war movie (Zero Dark Thirty's SEAL segment, for example) or just pestering that guy in the Army that you know. Moving around in combat is awkward, aiming a weapon takes time and you've always got at least one other person (more likely five or six) to keep track of. When you fire your weapon, your buddy fires theirs or the enemy return fire you will hear almost nothing else and even when you shout your buddy won't hear everything you say. Conserving and counting ammo comes down to "how many full magazines do I have left?", because you are unlikely to be able to remember how many shots you fired due to all the other things you need to keep track of (Where's your buddy, where's the enemy, what's our objective, what's the current order, is anybody hurt etc. etc.). That's not to mention the confusion that comes from all the noise, people shouting and stress hormones peaking at levels that you simply can't imagine unless you've experienced them. Even semi-realistic combat training will give you a sort of tunnel vision that no video game can ever get close to simulating.

Like Smithnikov, I got better in shooters after I had been in the Army but all those hundreds of hours in DoD, CoD, AA etc. amounted to next to nothing when it came to military combat proficiency.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

Alot of people who oppose violent video games, support gun ownership.

And a lot of people who think video game cause sexism/racism/homophobia/classicism/colorism are now saying its absurd to say video games cause violence, who ever said games can influence at all?!?!

There are hypocrites on both sides. What's your point?

Are they though? Or are you assuming those are the same people? Cause I can point to examples of mine, such as Trump.

Plus that someone can advocate guns claim to oppose violence is directly hypocritical. Like, you cannot support guns and pretend you oppose violent killing simulators, cause if anything, they should support that. The whole mentality of arming teachers for example is so they can use violence to kill students who try to shoot up a school.

Sure, there are most definitely going to be people who claim all games make people bigoted, but yet think the idea it makes them violent absurd. How many of them are lawmakers? How many of them are lobbyists? How many of them are President of the US?

Well to be fair, lets not pretend Trump actually thinks anything. He believes whatever the last person to talk to him said, and it was bad luck a camera caught him after talking to someone anti-game. It sucks, but we both know he'll be on some other absurd kick tomorrow, and a third one Wednesday.

But to the larger point, yes, the violence in games and sexism in games crowds probably don't overlap, but they're still the same. They're still morally gatekeeping, claiming video games have this power over the mind, and too much exposure to Doom turns people into mass shooters, and too much exposure to Extreme Beach Volleyball turns people into sexist rapists.
Its the same tactic, using the same argument, just with a different goal.
And my point is we can't have people saying games cause sexism and under-representation causes bigotry, and yadda yadda and think that's legit and worth talking about, then turn around and clutch our pearls when an old fuck says games cause violence and desensitization.
We can't have it both ways. Either games can cause violence, and sexism, or they can't do either. Games aren't magic, they didn't level up their ice spells but not their fire spells. They can't do both.

 

[DarklordKyo]

Well, apparently, Full Spectrum Warrior was designed to be a Squad-tactics simulator. Otherwise, hell if I know.

 

[stroopwafel]

No, games are pure fantasy and have nothing to do with real life. That is not to say they can't contribute to creative problem solving or quicker reflexes. The 'discussion' about violent videogames always flares up every once in a while since it's an easy scapegoat that doesn't alienate the electorate or requires any actual policy decisions to be made(like gun regulations for example).Time and again scientific studies have shown that there is no correlation between videogames and violent sociopathic behavior and on top of that the supreme court has ruled videogames as protected by the first amendment.

These games are played over the entire world yet these recurrent mass shootings are only a problem in the U.S. The sole reason for that is the excessive circulation and easy access to military grade firearms.

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

If video games taught me any kind of strategic combat thinking, it barely manifested when I went to play paintball a few years back.

Like, aside from one smart "hey, I'll hop between two vantage points to harass enemy lines, or snipe people sneaking into our territory", all the tactical strategy games and all the shooter games I played did jack shit in terms of strategy for me. XD

I spent most of the day hiding behind cover, blindfiring around corners (into a wall 6 feet away, not that I knew that at the time), or hiding behind a big huge wooden shield and considering a slow advance only to then get shot in the back from a few feet away which REALLY freakin hurt.

 

[Arnoxthe1]

I read the OP but I can honestly say that nothing I played prior to joining the Army (including America's Army) helped me all that much when it came to combat training. Even the most realistic game is very far removed from the actual thing (which holds true for the difference between training and actual combat) and there's very little to learn. The examples you make in the OP, like conserving ammo, importance of snipers etc. are theoretical basics that you learn in the first few days of military combat training.

The physicality of combat, if nothing else, means that all those computer games you've played are no better than reading a book, watching a realistic war movie (Zero Dark Thirty's SEAL segment, for example) or just pestering that guy in the Army that you know. Moving around in combat is awkward, aiming a weapon takes time and you've always got at least one other person (more likely five or six) to keep track of. When you fire your weapon, your buddy fires theirs or the enemy return fire you will hear almost nothing else and even when you shout your buddy won't hear everything you say. Conserving and counting ammo comes down to "how many full magazines do I have left?", because you are unlikely to be able to remember how many shots you fired due to all the other things you need to keep track of (Where's your buddy, where's the enemy, what's our objective, what's the current order, is anybody hurt etc. etc.). That's not to mention the confusion that comes from all the noise, people shouting and stress hormones peaking at levels that you simply can't imagine unless you've experienced them. Even semi-realistic combat training will give you a sort of tunnel vision that no video game can ever get close to simulating.

Like Smithnikov, I got better in shooters after I had been in the Army but all those hundreds of hours in DoD, CoD, AA etc. amounted to next to nothing when it came to military combat proficiency.

But I never once claimed that shooters made someone into some badass killer. Or even necessarily a competent soldier. You're absolutely right that these games can never take the place of actually BEING there. And I also never claimed that the stuff you learn in games can't be taught in the military. Not in the slightest. In fact, the military is obviously going to teach you these things the best and more. No, what I stated was merely that certain games do teach you SOME things. That is all.

Although I will say, the knowledge you get from gaming is not the same as what you'd get from merely reading or watching. In a game, you can obviously play out scenarios. You make the decisions and the game reacts accordingly. And depending on the accuracy of the game, you can surmise certain things, even if they are basic. Even if they are taught as first-level principles in the military. That's still knowledge that you gained from play, no matter how slight in comparison it may be to actual military training.

 

[sanquin]

I've been playing violent videogames (among others) since I was like...12~13 or something. Starting with GTA2 I believe, in which I loved just going on rampages to kill and destroy as much as possible. And I still play plenty of games where you kill tons of people. On top of that I'm pretty violent in nature. Fighting feels awesome to me. But I barely ever use violence. Heck I haven't actually fought a real fight with anyone in many years now. I simply don't like hurting real people. I'd feel way too bad and guilty if I did so. If anything, games (together with music and LARP) are an outlet for what would otherwise become a lot of pent up aggression and stress.

Then there's two friends of mine. One likes himself some good old fashioned murderous rampage every now and then, yet is pretty much the friendliest and non-confrontational person I know. The other loves himself some mindless killing and can cackle like an excited child while doing so, but he'd sooner hug than attack you in real life.

So clearly whatever effect games are supposed to have on people doesn't affect every one at the very least. It's almost as if you need to already have problems to make games have a violent effect on you. >.>

In fact, I can say that "violent videogames" have helped me more than anything. I've noticed I'm more aware of my surroundings and have better peripheral vision than people I know that don't play games, for instance. My hand-eye coordination and reflexes also seem better, though I'm not sure about those two. And yes, that does mostly come from the violent videogames I play. Because the other games I play usually don't require a lot of that.

As for tactics, it's hard to tell. The tactics I use in games barely help me in real life I think. At most it might make me more careful in certain situations because games have taught me that even though you might think it's safe/quiet/whatever, the situation can go to shit real quick if you aren't.

These games are played over the entire world yet these recurrent mass shootings are only a problem in the U.S. The sole reason for that is the excessive circulation and easy access to military grade firearms.

I don't think it's JUST the easy access to firearms in the US. I also think it's because of America's culture at the very least being more accepting of violence, if not even glorifying it. Readily accessible guns are a large part of it though.