As part one of the military/warfare series, I'll be looking to answer a few questions which came about on the series dedicated forum page. Quite varied, and certainly quite interesting as well.
Gunther asked several questions, as seen below:
 |
|
Russians may be the bad guys in most games, but they always turn heads when they sport the latest in Tommy Hilfiger camo.
|
|
i) Why the Russians appear to be the villains once again in the modern age military shooter. This is shown in not only Battlefield 3, but also the Modern Warfare series. The answer here, will be one of opinion to a degree, and there will also be a bit of analysis which may go deeper than your average article.
The Cold War between the U.S. and the Soviet Union is one of the last conflicts (although, thankfully, it never ended up in being fought out in real life) that had a clearly defined set of sides, with clear capabilities and armaments. These were two of the greatest powers history has ever known, and they had been pitted against each other due to conflicting ideas and philosophies. However, it was also one of the last conflicts that can be discussed without actually getting into too much controversy, as in a way, it was a 'gentleman's war'. Most of the wars since then have been plagued with controversies, debates, accusations of war crimes and torture amongst others, making those wars a bit difficult for a video game developer to use as a backdrop without getting a lot of bad press.
The wars since the end of the Cold War have included the Gulf War of 1991, the conflict in Bosnia, Kosovo, Chechnya, Afghanistan, Iraq again, and Libya amongst others. All of these wars have had some sort of controversy to them, and none of these wars had two sides of similar strengths (like the U.S. and the Russians/Soviets) in order to make a compelling and realistic storyline. There is no real alternative to the Russian dominance in first person shooter games as yet, and that may well be the Chinese in the future, but that seems to be a long way off yet.
 |
|
When it comes to realism in video games, not many want realism to go too far. Like for example, when blowing up a lawn gnome, it’s always vital to wear a safety helmet. This guy doesn’t. So, that’s not too realistic too, then?
|
|
ii) Gunther's second question was related to the fact that in first person shooters, your character can rarely get injured enough for you to become somewhat useless on the battlefield. For example, having your leg shot, and having you limp, or falling flat on your face. He questions if there is a reason for it and if whether it could be a hit if it were to be implemented.
This had been looked into by several game developers over the years, and was actually implemented in one of the original military simulations: Operation Flashpoint. In that game, a player could have his leg shot, and would be unable to stand up again if the wound is serious enough, without finding a medic first. From my experience playing it, it can be quite frustrating, especially as the distances that needed to be travelled in Operation Flashpoint were huge, and doing it on your belly like a caterpillar, isn't much fun. It seems like game developers have shied away from going that far on a regular basis, thinking that gamers aren't looking for reality, but rather an escape from reality. Bear in mind that before any game is released to the public, it is (normally) played ruthlessly by play testers who criticize the game left, right and center, with the aim of perfecting the game further. So, it is likely that such aspects, that is, the 'injuring ability' is something which was often cut out prior to any video game's release more often than not.
 |
|
Big guns. Sometimes they can be TOO big. You can’t even imagine what the rabbit he’s trying to hunt is actually packing.
|
|
iii) With regards to the usage of the 14.5mm Russian caliber round, I found this question the most difficult one to answer due to a lack of materal on the topic. However, what I can say is that the use of Russian armaments and projectiles remains heavily in use in many third world countries, including a number in Africa. This is due in no small part to the relative low cost of conventional Russian arms in comparison to their Western counterparts, as well as the little maintainence they require to continue to operate properly - the best example being the Russian AK47 and its variants. It may also be that the 14.5 mm round could not be optimized for use on small arms, perhaps due to velocity of the projectile and the distance it can travel without having a huge gun to fire it, but that's merely a theory, as no solid answer appears available. Sorry about that.
 |
|
Cyber warfare is on the increase, but it’s not quite there yet.
|
|
Osprey asked the final question for this week, which was 'Considering what Stuxnet managed to do, how far are we from relying entirely on cyber warfare?'. The question is simple in theory, but the answer is pretty complicated. In short, there has been a change in the way in which war is fought - that much is obvious from World War 2, to the Cold War, to what has happened in Afghanistan & Iraq. There appears to be a trend to rely on more technology in order to carry out attacks, especially the U.S. (Tomahawk cruise missiles, UAVs, Bunker Busting bombs, etc). But relying entirely on cyber warfare, in my opinion, may well never happen. The reason being is, for example, Special Forces, like Delta Force, the SAS, and Russian Spetznatz, will probably continue to play a part in war for a long time to come, seeing as war to seems to be moving towards the unconventional war in which Asian armed movements seem more adapt (militant/insurgent entities like the Taliban in both Afghanistan and Pakistan being prime examples). War is no longer fought on fixed lines and fronts, a fact which scares the hell out of a military strategist, but excites an insurgent.
A full on transition to cyber warfare does not seem to be on the cards. Not yet, at least. To use an analogy, imagine for a moment that all nations are fish in a pond. At this time, there only a few fish able to use cyber warfare (an interesting idea if taken literally, imagine nemo hacking into a database and wreaking havoc), so the pond isn't too crowded yet. But when a lot of the fish in the pond are of the same size (all able to use cyber warfare, or at least, the vast majority), that ruins the whole food chain, where there are no more big or small fish, just equal size fish able to wreak havoc on one another. Right now, a few Western nations can use cyber warfare to annoy another nation, but it doesn't seem as though we are far along enough in the evolution of information technology for it to be used on a scale to wreck nations and their infrastructure.
If there's any follow up questions on any of the points today, let me know!
In the meantime, for anyone else that has questions or wants any articles on areas about war, or history, or anything like that, like last time, please let me know in the forum thread. That's all for this week guys, have a good weekend.
S.E.A.L. out.
General of the Army S.E.A.L.
