GinxTV: Ginx Spin: Battlefield 3: Guide to Military Tourism

Ginx Spin: Battlefield 3: Guide to Military Tourism

Ginx Spin takes a look at Battlefield 3 and the concept of 'military tourism' appearing in recent shooters.

Watch Video

This always bothers me, battlefield 2 came out like two years before the first modern warfare game, and everyone always like to say they jumped on the bandwagon.

FogHornG36:
This always bothers me, battlefield 2 came out like two years before the first modern warfare game, and everyone always like to say they jumped on the bandwagon.

It's actually refering to having a campaign that focuses on the modern military, not to having any shooter set in modern times; Battlefield 2 had no campaign.

Kyle 2175:

FogHornG36:
This always bothers me, battlefield 2 came out like two years before the first modern warfare game, and everyone always like to say they jumped on the bandwagon.

It's actually refering to having a campaign that focuses on the modern military, not to having any shooter set in modern times; Battlefield 2 had no campaign.

Yep, Bad Company was the first game in the Battlefield family to actually have a proper campaign. Though if I remember correctly you could play through a series of bot matches in 1942 with A.I. team-mates and enemies. Fun but not exactly a solid single-player experience.

This video was pointless and lacking any real facts or insights. This was just a 4:40 commercial for Battlefield 3. Jimquisition and Extra Credits are real shows.

Thumbs down!

Kojiro ftt:
This video was pointless and lacking any real facts or insights. This was just a 4:40 commercial for Battlefield 3. Jimquisition and Extra Credits are real shows.

Thumbs down!

Ditto. Exactly what I thought.

This "GINX TV" stuff is shitty filler television of the worst sort.

It suffers from, as said being too much like a commercial, suffering from an inconsistancy of tone opening with "traveling to foreign climes, meeting people and shooting them in the face" before moving onto a very shallow verbal essay on war simulation and society, being obviously heavily scripted to "connect wit da youth" and being of a particularly infuriating style of British television presentation pioneered by nonces such as Richard Hammond.

The last episode ended with the particularly irritating chipper exhortation: "If you don't have these games, you're worth knowing but if you go buy them you'll be our friend."

To paraphrase a great man, No Ginx TV, we'll never be friends; because you're smelly and stupid and you smell like old pants.

It is completely pointless, just some pseudo-intellectual blabbering about war-gaming without any point.

"No Ginx TV, we'll never be friends; because you're smelly and stupid and you smell like old pants."

That sums it up pretty well.

Well that was extremely uninteresting. At the very least she could have taken a side.

BF3's Singleplayer was completely forgettable. Probably the most boring thing i've watched on this site. But i do appreciate the neutral stance. Rather prefer to hear both sides of a story. Still pretty damn boring.

p.s. anyone else having a hard time loading the HD versions lately? I have a 50mb down connection and its not loading the videos fast enough... wtf

So... What did this video achieve exactly? My main issue is that the questions it brought up are ones this forum brings up in forum posts all the time and I could have gotten over that if you'd even explored either side well... at all really. As it stands, you're just advertising a game by chatting over it and not really getting anywhere, so we end up just kind of dozing off while watching things blow up.

Although I suppose people go to watch transformers for pretty much the same thing -zing- Good try, but you need to go more in depth.

I first thought the video was satire on how games have become hand-holding straight-line-simulators. Then I realized someone was trying to give serious commentary on how perception of reality is changed when we have a distorted game-ified version presented under the pretence of the supposed 'realisim' given by modern games. And then I realized they had no clue what they were talking about.

Unfocused topic, and inconsistent tone. A poor presentation on whatever the original point was; I watched the video a second time and now I'm even more confused...

Didn't really go anywhere, did it.

I liked it, but I didn't take anything away from it; and without meaning or humour, there's just not a whole lot of substance.

Still, it wasn't bad; with a video every day, you can afford the occasional less-than-spectacular entry.

Double post?! Outrageous!

This was absolutely terrible.

The facts are wrong, there is TONS of pointless filler (generic info AND silent pauses) and the purpose of the vid is obscure in addition to being completely generic and moronic.

If you are going to do an entire bit on Military Tourism it might be a good idea to define it and why it is interesting or maybe controversial. Because the definition (given at the bloody half way point) is that the game takes place in many real world locations. This statement is generic and meaningless as every shooter that doesn't have plasma rifles takes place in real world settings. Basically half of all FPS have globe trotting shenanigans (not counting space games like Halo 1)
Unless military tourism means that the game takes us to 'current conflict hot spots' in which case its FUCKING WRONG. I don't remember Ruskies invading Paris or New York on CNN recently or even Obama throwing a pie at Iranians. And only a very very few have been dumb enough to make a game based on current military events in Afghanistan/Iraq so its not a trend.

The most interesting thing that is said is that gamers might get a negative impression about the location in which they are fighting. Which is, AGAIN, so completely generic and so over-played that I actually didn't notice it the first time I watched this. Its like saying water is wet or grass is green.

I was also annoyed because 'military tourism' already is defined. It means visiting war sites as a tourist. The term was also used by a US Army officer who was complaining that the new super armor plated vehicles used by infantry on patrols was making them not interact with the locals in Iraq/Afghanistan which turned policing forces into 'military tourists' which was making it impossible to win hearts and minds etc(this was a while ago and not very well known)

And the game facts are wrong too. Games have been globe hopping since the days of the beat em up and fighting games (Street Fighter 2) on the SNES; with Golden Eye being the first globe trotting FPS I can think of. And Battlefield Bad Company had globe trotting too. Not to mention Battlefield 2 Modern Combat which came out before Modern Warfare which apparently made globe trotting famous.

And whats with the filler. Ever gamer knows what BF3 is about, and even if you don't a basic description of the game should not take up 25% of the run time. And what is with the constant annoying pauses?

This was a god damn horrible bit of journalism. I have seen last minute term papers by students who didn't read a single book for the class with more meat than this.
This is pathetic.

Mr Thin:
Didn't really go anywhere, did it.

I liked it, but I didn't take anything away from it; and without meaning or humour, there's just not a whole lot of substance.

Still, it wasn't bad; with a video every day, you can afford the occasional less-than-spectacular entry.

What did you think the message they were trying to get across was?

I had high hopes for this one - but four minutes later I just had to let out a disappointed sigh. What an amazingly superficial analysis of an important issue. There are scads of research out there about the effect of media (not just games) on our perceptions of social issues, but you'd never know it from this video. Basically all you said is "there might be some issues, but its ok, because shooting people is fun. And hey, its only pixels, right?"

Meh.

What a load of tripe. This Ginx nonsense is worse than Game Dogs to me.

I'm not sure about your conclusion here. Whilst the underlying mechanics go back to the old arcade days, I think context is a big factor in modern shooters. I can't find proof of it but the buzz was MW1 was so brilliant because it moved out of WWII and my brother (who really really wants to join the army) doesn't like anything but modern shooters and particularly hates Sci-fi. Other friends who're into it, tend to be more favourable towards the army than me and have a similar disinclination to shooters in another context.

And if context is that important to the experience (and what Modern Warfare really did is begin selling games as an experience rather than a gameplay challenge) then that's going to have an affect on us, because a large part of what we're taking away from the game is the setting and not the gameplay values.

And if a poster was enough to help alter public opinion to wars back in 40's (and keep in mind that if the underlying thing about a game is it's gameplay, the underlying thing about a poster is usually _absolutely nothing_. If they aren't factual posters then all they are is an image. They certainly don't normally contain anything more 'real' or less fictional than a game, other than it's clearly the intent of a poster to sway you, whereas that's not the motive of the game developers and it's players are not on guard), then surely a full blown game is going to alter it more.

Not sure if this was an editorial peice or just a short history lesson, either way it wasn't bad.

OT:
To answer a lot of the annoying complaints:
a) When they said that CoD did whatever first, they were referring to the SINGLE PLAYER. Just in case you guys didn't notice, this whole video was about the Battlefield 3 single player campaign.
b) Call of Duty 4 popularized FPS multiplayer in a way no one else had before. By combining leveling/RPG elements and the ability to choose your load-out allowed new players to compete with more experienced players. Not to mention how the leveling and XP system got people hooked on the game.

I couldn't disagree more with the idea that the 'frantic' gameplay of modern shooters harks back to the old school. With a modern shooter (particularly Modern Warfare which I played a couple of days ago) you're a passenger, everything is predetermined. Hell I lost attention at points to find that my squadmates had just ploughed through and killed everyone. The old school shooters gave you genuinely frenetic combat and simple rules without hand holding or railroading.

endplanets:
*snip* blurb about military tourism

I'm not really sure on your objection there, you complain that they don't define military tourism, then state that virtually all modern FPSs do it. If it's so common it doesn't really need a definition does it? I feel you're being deliberately obtuse, particularly when you refer to the other definitions of military tourism which the video clearly isn't referring to and don't exist in games.

gg

gg

jj

number2301:

endplanets:
*snip* blurb about military tourism

I'm not really sure on your objection there, you complain that they don't define military tourism, then state that virtually all modern FPSs do it. If it's so common it doesn't really need a definition does it? I feel you're being deliberately obtuse, particularly when you refer to the other definitions of military tourism which the video clearly isn't referring to and don't exist in games.

I thought by stuff was fairly well explained, but let me elaborate.

The most common definition on the internet for Military Tourism is when tourists go to places that with military significance. So "lets go to Pearl Harbor, then Normandy, then the Flanders and etc etc". It is a real thing and is fairly well known.
The other definition I know of Military Tourism is that some senior officials in the US military were upset that soldiers/marines were not interacting with the locals in Iraq/Afghanistan. Instead they were just looking out their Hummer windows and taking pictures, like tourists. Hence they called it military tourism and wanted it to stop. This definition is not very well known and I don't know if it is actually used by the military outside of a few officers.

But the vid's definition of Military Tourism is either that it takes place in current military hotspots (2:04) (which is not true at all for BF3 or MW3 but whatever). Very very few games (Kuma or that one game about Fallujah which was canceled) do it and they are not popular.

The other definition in the Vid is that it takes place in many locations like New York or Paris (2:01). Having the main character run around many locations has been done since forever. Metal Slug, Streets of Rage, Street Fighter, etc go all around the world. And the FPS Golden Eye had Bond running around the world in 1997. Back to my statement, basically half of real world shooters have the player running around the world.

So my complaint is that Military Tourism is already defined. And that the vid's definition of Military Tourism is either wrong (very very few games take place in real world hotspots) or so generic that it is meaningless (lots of FPS are in many locations).
Also: its analysis of gaming in 'hotspots' is generic and yet childish.

gg

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here