Examining the link between video games and the so-called “Beltway Sniper”
Scott McCollum
October 18, 2002
As of Thursday night, all the major cable TV news networks have ran some kind of story about how the so-called “Beltway Sniper” could possibly be a trained killer due to his violent video game addiction. Why is that “realistic” games about shooting bad guys like Counter-Strike can always be responsible for some crazy murderer with a gun, but “realistic” games like FIFA Soccer 2003 or Hooligans are never responsible for a European football riot?
In no way do I want to be the guy that says: “Aw, kids will be kids” after some stupid bratty nut takes a fake M-16 and shoots up his high school. I also don’t want to be the guy that says that listening to a heavy metal or rap song while playing a video game made the stupid bratty nut murder a bunch of classmates. I’m not going to justify that kind of horrible behavior the same way that I wouldn’t be so myopic as to run a story on my network’s nightly news program about how a video game containing a sniper rifle is directly attributable to teen violence but smear religious groups that protest the sex filled so-called “comedies” on their network as being a bunch of dopey fundamentalist prudes that are probably in need of some sex themselves. Why should TV news blame a video game or song after junior shoots up the lunchroom when it’s more than obvious that mom and stepdad #2 weren’t in the running for “Parent of the Year” award?
I want people to take a step back and logically look at the big picture for a minute when it comes to the fantasy of “shooter” video games and the reality of a cowardly murderer.
Can a murdering thug like the “Beltway Sniper” be trained to kill another human being with a rifle by playing Counter-Strike? Not really. For those unfamiliar with Counter-Strike, it is an extension of the popular Half-Life video game released around three years ago by Sierra/Vivendi-Universal Games. Counter-Strike was hailed as a new paradigm in computer gaming because of its “realism” in regards to physics and damage models: In other words, players in the game use “realistic” weapons found on the modern battlefield and are often killed by one shot from one of those weapons rather than using particle beam lasers and anti-gravity boots. In Counter-Strike, players take the role of either a terrorist or counter-terrorist force, divided into teams and given missions. Each side had to complete their mission in a certain amount of time or lose the round; counter-terrorists would have to rescue hostages while the terrorists defend the hostages, et cetera. Players are represented on screen as US Navy Seals or British Special Air Services counter-terrorist forces while terrorists are dressed in garb approximating the many militant groups of murderous fanatics around the globe.
It’s easy to see where TV network news-types can easily point the finger at Counter-Strike: Players can choose to be “terrorists” and a “realistic” sniper rifle is one of the weapons gamers use to achieve their team’s goals. However, there’s quite a difference between “realistic” gameplay on a video game by clicking a mouse and actually shouldering a sniper rifle. News readers for most TV network have often never held any type of gun in their lives and many are ardent advocates of disbanding the National Rifle Association. Few news readers have no idea the skill and determination needed to accurately sight in a target and pull the trigger on a deadly weapon. That’s tough. By contrast, many news readers know all about sitting on their rears and clicking the mouse button. That’s easy.
Playing a video game like Counter-Strike can develop keen hand-eye coordination through repetition, but you’re talking about mouse clicks here; not trigger pulling. Counter-Strike may be “realistic” in many ways, but it is also a game notorious for the plethora of cheats available to the give cheaters an advantage over their more scrupulous adversaries. Most Counter-Strike cheaters use “aimbots”; keystroke macros that automatically sight in the whites of the eyes of their opponents for a guaranteed kill from their onscreen sniper rifle every time. Cheaters are rampant in the online world of Counter-Strike, so much so that the makers of the game and third-party software developers have issued numerous bits of anti-cheat technology for the game in the past year. Yes, many of the people I’ve encountered online that play Counter-Strike are not very pleasant; they cheat, they are often rude, they swear, they are unrepentant about their behavior but that’s because they are playing against you from their homes in another city. Few would be so bold in the real world (say, sitting next to one of these louts in a game room), because after a minute or two of this a normal person would pull the bragging cheater out of his chair by his unwashed ponytails and punch his fat, geeky face in. Counter-Strike players are only hotshots when they’re on the Internet, not the real world. Also in the real world, a rifle is heavy, a scope can be unforgiving, a target can move suddenly and there are no such things as “aimbots.”
It’s easy for the TV networks’ newsrooms to take aim at video games because there’s a need to blame someone or something. Just in the past two weeks the world has seen numerous examples of international terrorism perpetrated by either Al Qaeda or Muslim extremists – the Bali blast, the French oil tanker bombing in Yemen, bombings in the Philippines and Israel, an American soldier murdered in Kuwait – but American reporters seem to have this strange block against even investigating the possibility of those groups being involved in the so-called “Beltway Sniper.” Amazing that few in the American TV news world will consider the Beltway Sniper as a possible Al Qaeda operative, but will immediately place the blame for nine murders on any American with a computer and a $30 copy of a video game.
http://www.worldtechtribune.com/worldtechtribune/asparticles/buzz/bz10182002.asp
Scott McCollum
October 18, 2002
As of Thursday night, all the major cable TV news networks have ran some kind of story about how the so-called “Beltway Sniper” could possibly be a trained killer due to his violent video game addiction. Why is that “realistic” games about shooting bad guys like Counter-Strike can always be responsible for some crazy murderer with a gun, but “realistic” games like FIFA Soccer 2003 or Hooligans are never responsible for a European football riot?
In no way do I want to be the guy that says: “Aw, kids will be kids” after some stupid bratty nut takes a fake M-16 and shoots up his high school. I also don’t want to be the guy that says that listening to a heavy metal or rap song while playing a video game made the stupid bratty nut murder a bunch of classmates. I’m not going to justify that kind of horrible behavior the same way that I wouldn’t be so myopic as to run a story on my network’s nightly news program about how a video game containing a sniper rifle is directly attributable to teen violence but smear religious groups that protest the sex filled so-called “comedies” on their network as being a bunch of dopey fundamentalist prudes that are probably in need of some sex themselves. Why should TV news blame a video game or song after junior shoots up the lunchroom when it’s more than obvious that mom and stepdad #2 weren’t in the running for “Parent of the Year” award?
I want people to take a step back and logically look at the big picture for a minute when it comes to the fantasy of “shooter” video games and the reality of a cowardly murderer.
Can a murdering thug like the “Beltway Sniper” be trained to kill another human being with a rifle by playing Counter-Strike? Not really. For those unfamiliar with Counter-Strike, it is an extension of the popular Half-Life video game released around three years ago by Sierra/Vivendi-Universal Games. Counter-Strike was hailed as a new paradigm in computer gaming because of its “realism” in regards to physics and damage models: In other words, players in the game use “realistic” weapons found on the modern battlefield and are often killed by one shot from one of those weapons rather than using particle beam lasers and anti-gravity boots. In Counter-Strike, players take the role of either a terrorist or counter-terrorist force, divided into teams and given missions. Each side had to complete their mission in a certain amount of time or lose the round; counter-terrorists would have to rescue hostages while the terrorists defend the hostages, et cetera. Players are represented on screen as US Navy Seals or British Special Air Services counter-terrorist forces while terrorists are dressed in garb approximating the many militant groups of murderous fanatics around the globe.
It’s easy to see where TV network news-types can easily point the finger at Counter-Strike: Players can choose to be “terrorists” and a “realistic” sniper rifle is one of the weapons gamers use to achieve their team’s goals. However, there’s quite a difference between “realistic” gameplay on a video game by clicking a mouse and actually shouldering a sniper rifle. News readers for most TV network have often never held any type of gun in their lives and many are ardent advocates of disbanding the National Rifle Association. Few news readers have no idea the skill and determination needed to accurately sight in a target and pull the trigger on a deadly weapon. That’s tough. By contrast, many news readers know all about sitting on their rears and clicking the mouse button. That’s easy.
Playing a video game like Counter-Strike can develop keen hand-eye coordination through repetition, but you’re talking about mouse clicks here; not trigger pulling. Counter-Strike may be “realistic” in many ways, but it is also a game notorious for the plethora of cheats available to the give cheaters an advantage over their more scrupulous adversaries. Most Counter-Strike cheaters use “aimbots”; keystroke macros that automatically sight in the whites of the eyes of their opponents for a guaranteed kill from their onscreen sniper rifle every time. Cheaters are rampant in the online world of Counter-Strike, so much so that the makers of the game and third-party software developers have issued numerous bits of anti-cheat technology for the game in the past year. Yes, many of the people I’ve encountered online that play Counter-Strike are not very pleasant; they cheat, they are often rude, they swear, they are unrepentant about their behavior but that’s because they are playing against you from their homes in another city. Few would be so bold in the real world (say, sitting next to one of these louts in a game room), because after a minute or two of this a normal person would pull the bragging cheater out of his chair by his unwashed ponytails and punch his fat, geeky face in. Counter-Strike players are only hotshots when they’re on the Internet, not the real world. Also in the real world, a rifle is heavy, a scope can be unforgiving, a target can move suddenly and there are no such things as “aimbots.”
It’s easy for the TV networks’ newsrooms to take aim at video games because there’s a need to blame someone or something. Just in the past two weeks the world has seen numerous examples of international terrorism perpetrated by either Al Qaeda or Muslim extremists – the Bali blast, the French oil tanker bombing in Yemen, bombings in the Philippines and Israel, an American soldier murdered in Kuwait – but American reporters seem to have this strange block against even investigating the possibility of those groups being involved in the so-called “Beltway Sniper.” Amazing that few in the American TV news world will consider the Beltway Sniper as a possible Al Qaeda operative, but will immediately place the blame for nine murders on any American with a computer and a $30 copy of a video game.
http://www.worldtechtribune.com/worldtechtribune/asparticles/buzz/bz10182002.asp
