Same goes for rising storm 2 veitnam any form of gunshot to the head or heart spells instant death to the one on the wrong end of the gun Although for some reason everytime I look at the health of squad commanders they seem to have always sustained minor heart damage maybe a balancing thing to do with grenades
@@landlockedcroat1554 Well I mean when you get shot you usually get knocked to the ground, so even if they're technically alive they're more like a twitching mess of blood than walking around alive
Regarding Rosemary Kennedy, one of the most heartbreaking details is that her mother, Rose, only found out that she was still alive when she was cleaning out her husband's desk after his death. She, like everyone else, had been told that Rosemary died. The reason why Rosemary had some developmental issues before the lobotomy was probably because the doctor was late attending her birth, so the nurses tried to prevent it from happening until he could arrive (delivering a Kennedy being a big status symbol). This likely starved her of oxygen at a crucial stage.
additionally, a LOT of her developmental "issues" were mostly quirks - she was unable to really understand/follow social norms of the time, like "don't talk to men without your father present" or other oppressive systems of the age. The true reasons will likely never come out, but her mother and brothers knew that she had boyfriends and casual flings, and she may have been bisexual as well - both of which would be well enough for Kennedy Sr. to force a lobotomy on her, so she didn't cause a "scandal" for the Kennedy family. They destroyed a woman so completely because she was free and loved life.
I believe William Golding was ahead of his time with this, in Lord of the Flies, Piggy is killed by a large rock being dropped and knocking him off of a cliff. His corpse falls 40 feet and his head is smashed open when he lands on the rocks below. Piggy went from being alive to murdered in cold blood once the rock hit him. But he stops being a person once his head is in pieces and his brain is reduced into flecks of pink and red matter that has been plastered into the granite. His brain is simply referred to as "stuff", just "his head opened and stuff came out and turned red". Piggy's brain, his mind, his greatest strength, had been reduced to mere stuff, and that is chilling.
@@corvicore6813 Same here, but I think that's a reasonable age to be honest. Piggy's death is easily the most graphic part in the book, and it isn't any worse than what a standard 15 year old would encounter in media nowadays anyway. As for the themes in the book, by their mid - teens most people have already decided that the world is terrible without a book telling them so. Not that that particular scene wasn't disturbing though, it definitely gave me the intended sense of dread for a week or so
corvicore it’s about the Loss of innocence. Which also coincides with the age of adolescence. It’s a time when you realize you’re not a kid anymore, but you’re still not an adult. It’s an alienating experience, kinda like being stuck on a deserted island ya know...
@@noahmorris1015 But he brought RE4 as a top example of a "headshot game", despite being the only game I've ever seen to punish you with stronger enemies for shooting them in the head, and making you feel regret (as a mistake that hinders your progress) for doing so.
@@justsomeone5314 sure! but the craziness of the line is enjoyable within or without context. at least that's how i see quotes like those. you bring up an interesting point!
MGSV punishes you for headshots by issuing helms to troops across the map. Also punishes for choosing to do missions at night by giving NVGs to enemies, and body shots by giving body armor. So on and so forth. Wasn’t the game it should have been, but it was still very good.
i always saw shooting the gun out of someone's hand as the ultimate expression of sharpshooting prowess. theirs something almost defiant about it. the fact that the person wielding the gun know's that it is designed exclusively for killing but through preforming this neigh impossible act they have circumvented not only the intentions of their enemy but of their own weapon.
@@aurus7245 yeah, but that reduces my karma stat. :D
3 года назад+1206
"It's like his gun is a stapler" man, I don't know your dad but that's such a keen observation. That phrase is going to stay with me as I watch more movies
2 года назад+39
@ashy Like, I loved that phrase, I'm going to remember it while watching more movies. The guy on the screen will be like "bang bang bang" and I'll be thinking "Hey it's like his gun is a stapler"
@ashy maybe it has to do with how generous and thoughtless he seems to be when he shoots. Shooting someone with the same gravity of stapling papers, same 'pop' but different object. I'm honestly not so sure either but here's my take and it might make sense.
i mean, according to the story of the oven of akhnai, anyone could be equal to standing up to the word of god because not only is the torah a secondary source, it's the possession of the people of earth now so we decide what the rules mean for ourselves and use our own judgement on whether to follow them or not
-I'd like to point out that the reason people got shot in the chest in old movies is special effects feasibility. Having the actor mime being hit in the clothing or rigging them with squibs later is much easier than creating a gunshot wound to the head special effect. -US Army doctrine as early as the 80's (oldest manual I read while serving, it was yellow and dog-eared, on some random bookshelf) was "two in the chest, one in the head" at close range.
Yup. The latter advice is also codified in handgun shooting as the Mozambique Drill. It combines reliability of center mass fire and the rapid neutralization of a threat well and is easy to train for.
@@CommanderTornado Now I suddenly realise why "Two in the chest, one in the head" is a voice line for Bangalore in Apex Legends when using the Mozambique Pistol, even though it's not the best way to use that weapon.
@@sabinekine2737 I've always thought that, since the pistol has 3 barrels, the top, central one would hit the head while the bottom two would hit the chest. That would, effectively, turn the Mozambique Drill into just one trigger pull instead of three.
I frequently think of a time when I was in the 3rd grade. A girl in my class had a brother in the military and had come to speak to our class about his experiences. Near the end there was an opportunity for us to ask questions. I’ll never forget the awkward silence that followed after a 3rd grade kid asked if the veteran in front of us who had seen combat if he had ever gotten a headshot.
Attacking the head has always been associated with the fastest way to kill someone. We used to behead people with swords, axes, and guillotines well before firearms, and then put their heads on display on spikes, like you said, as a representation of that person. So the head was associated with a person's personality and their life force well before the heart shot became a thing.
You don't avoid the head because of the trophy. The brain inside the cranium of most animals is a very small target and a near miss will keep the animal alive to have a painful death. There used to the a video on youtube of a doe with her jaw missing due to a poacher's botched shot. The person who filmed it said he had asked permission from the property owner to put her down but wasn't allowed. That deer died either from infection or from being unable to eat. Hence most people consider it inhumane. There are hunters who aim for the head because they trust their skills and try to get much closer to the animal to decrease the chances of a miss but most people consider it a poor practice.
Titanium Rain I avoid the head because of the trophy shooting a deer buck or doe in the head will kill it (unless you barley graze it) but then again I like to watch my dad skin the deer especial the buck I shot but it is unethical and inhuman to shoot the deer in the head first brains everywhere second shooting in the heart makes there pain receptors stop working hell even a shot to the leg will it’s body will stop the pain on purpose if it happens extremely fast and is painfully as all hell next it will bleed out extremely fast if you shoot of the ascending aorta like I did then you get to keep the deer heart but still head shots are a no go well at least for me and my family
@@Sputterbugz shooting the deer in a headshot makes it even more worst because their brain is kinda small and the bullet can hit weird making it suffer even more. You just don't shoot the head unless you are absolutely very surely stupidly positively it's gonna penatrate and kill it. Shooting the lungs or heart is just how you do quick and cleanly and how it been done for years. It's not like in a videogame.
TeaRex844 still a shot to the brain would be quicker, but like you've said because of how difficult it is to actually hit the brain it's not worth the risk of missing and to just target the vital organs. Though personally I don't believe in trophy hunting. Hunting for food, yes. But trophy hunting has no real purpose besides taking pleasure in killing. Killing to preserve your own life, the life of someone else is completely justifiable. But killing just to have the pleasure of taking a life is disgusting to me.
@@Sputterbugz If you manage a shot to the heart or lung it's quicker than a bleedout. It's important to consider that when shooting a powerful enough caliber, you have a chance of paralyzing the front limbs which immobilizes the animal. Meanwhile if you hit the skull and because of the angle it glances off or goes through the neck, you might have a wounded animal that will run off and now you have to track it through the woods. If you want to put a second shot through the head once immobilized no problem, but consider that you can be aiming at the head and making a noise can cause an animal like a deer to twist his head and look for the source of the noise. If this happens when you're about to shoot you can miss.
Amazing essay. I do a lot of headshot reactions when I motion capture video games, from multiple angles, falling at different speeds in different directions. Sometimes I'll do 100 of these things in a row. Game developers are always looking for new visceral headshot ideas. During these mocap sessions I'm frequently reminded of the al-qaida training video with real kids killing real prisoners, and I'll find myself mimicking those real deaths, sometimes subconsciously, because after 50 deaths you start searching the recesses of your brain for inspiration to keep working. Admittedly it feels very strange after doing that for a day (at my company I've literally done "reaction days"... Not a good idea for a stuntman.) I don't recommend watching that video, but unfortunately it might have helped me get a bunch of mocap contracts.
Do you mostly do Mocap for games, or do you do movie Mocap as well? I'm just fascinated by people who work in the field, how they got started, etc. Outside of normal acting classes, do people heavily into Mocap work take courses of that's what they wish to pursue? or is it pretty much just like acting, except wearing the suits and technology? For example, seeing behind the scenes of avengers, The gentleman playing Hulk is fully in Mocap gear even wearing a tall stick up his back with a Ball showing wear hulks head would be for other actors & the camera. while someone like Robert Downey JR is just wearing a physical chest plate of his Iron man armor, but has Mocap Pants and Arm Sleeves with all the patters for a computer to read & render on top, and he might have dots on his face if it's a scene showing him with his helmet down. Then seeing the pioneering work that went into Golem in LOTR and Caesar in the recent Planet of the apes movies. or seeing the 3 actors from GTA V talking about their Mocap experience, and the crazy things they would have to do that they never did in movie or TV. and they said how with some games it can involve so much more work because there is so much varying dialogue that changes based on the players choice & input. and how video game scripts make movie scripts look like reading a short book report....lol. props to what you do, man. Much luck to you.
They're is a specific one that works it's the limp your body goes from straight to completely limp but I would suggest stretching and head gear when you fall
The realistic reactions are the most visceral. No dramatic posing or thrashing like it's an 80s film. Just immediately falling in whatever natural way the body would, like a marionette with its strings cut.
man, NONE of my friends, religious or otherwise, would be able to come up with as baller an argument as "who is the ESRB to stand up to the word of god?"
hate to be devils advocate, but i feel like people who experience gun violence are a (entirely too large) minority in america. i don't think we've hit 50%
War and violence has always been glorified for centuries, the big difference between now and then is the fact that violence is seen as completely and pointlessly evil whereas it used to be viewed as a necessary evil.
It wasn't until WW1 that we began to start thinking that glorifying violence was a bad thing. This was one of the major sources of strain between the troops and the officers. The officers still believed in the old way that war was glorious and the only way to become a man while the soldiers realized that there was no glory left in war. An individual soldier could no longer stand out and dominate the battlefield.
@@Viperzka It wasn't until WW1 that people other than the war-makers really got a chance to record their opinions on the subject, I feel we take a lot of the war fever of the past for granted when we know history was written by the victor to make them look good as often as not.
"If the brain is the self, what's left of a boy shot twice in the head?" What the fuck. What the fuck this line hit me so hard. I'm still reeling what the fuck
@@zorklinki3131 A person who was barely a man was shot in the head. Kid probably had dreams like you do, has family like you do. Imagine the person you love most being shot in the head twice, most likely murdered based on race alone. Lives matter, they're not numbers. Contemplate that if you can, you just told someone that the massacre of this life isn't that deep.
it's literally the opposite. he upheld and enforced rules to make his argument (lawful), and the consequences of owning and playing the game resulted in him having nightmares (evil). "chaotic good" is letting no laws stop you from helping other people; "lawful evil" is rules-lawyering at the expense of human wellbeing.
I can think of two games that don't encourage/actively discourage killing, yet have it as an option should the player wish. Metal Gear Solid V - Doesn't actively discourage kills, but has a "hidden" point system that visually depicts the negativity associated with. Additionally, bonus points if you don't kill and an even bigger bonus if you don't fire a shot. Death Stranding meanwhile actually straight up tells you to not kill, and makes killing extremely inconvenient. I played through the game in sixty hours and only killed one human enemy out of curiosity. Both games were directed by Hideo Kojima. Make of it what you will.
This makes me interested in Death Stranding. It's too bad I'm poor and can't afford a computer or console capable of running it at the moment. I've just always been interested in games in which it's possible to complete the game by non-lethal means, especially if not killing enemies is actively encouraged.
So the question isn't "do video games cause violence?" But that "How violence influence video games?" Video games is art and art is a reflection of ourselves. Violent video games are not the source but a mirror to our obsession with violence and gun culture.
@@acekabogen your obsessed aren’t you. Are the white supremacists in the room right now? Please go back to twitter or go outside, it’s sad seeing someone so deluded by identity politics and race baiting
“Rosemary isn’t the first Kennedy people think of when traumatic brain injuries come up” …That’s probably one of the most morbid quotes I’ve heard in the past year.
And yet they have a head explosion animation to make them satisfying anyway. Besides, you can't get much more "gamifictation of violence" than turning a shootout into a puzzle.
The director, François Truffaut, had this whole maxim about how it's impossible to successfully make an anti-war film because war, in itself, is viscerally exciting, rife with the kind of visuals that just look amazing on the silver screen. He might be right. Think of Apocalypse Now! where Coppola was trying to depict the Vietnam War as the monstrous crime it was, yet most peoples' reactions to the scene where US planes bomb and gun down Vietnamese citizens to the tune of "Ride of the Valkyries" by Richard Wagner, is like "F Yeah!" In fairness, it really is a good musical choice. Wagner is perfect for getting someone fired up, ready to blow a country to smithereens. You hear his music and immediately you're like, "F Yeah! Let's invade Poland!"
Uh... Vietnam WAN’T a monsterous crime. It was a war to stop Communism from taking South East Asia. Did you not look up what Republican Spain, People’s Republic of China, The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Cuba, Vietnam (after we cowardly betrayed the South Vietnamese by withdrawing aid and troops and, surprise surprise, the NVA completely violated the Paris Peace Accords), and so on did to their own people and to those they conquered? I’m sorry but I’m not feeling any sympathy for supporters of such a monsterous ideology.
@@duncanharrell5009 are you saying that the means weren't monstrous? Destroying crops with chemical weapons in order to starve the north? No? Napalm bombing cities?p
@@duncanharrell5009 The Vietnam war was filled with violations of the Geneva accords on either side and it was a war of self determination with Maoist nationalists on one side and the French puppet of South Vietnam on the other.
"If the brain is the self, what's left of a boy shot twice in the head?" this whole video was pretty emotional at times but this made me burst out sobbing
@@danon3955 maybe if one day you manage to have a kid with whatever poor woman unfortunately falls for you enough to allow that, and should you have a single fiber of humanity in yourself to feel for this child, love it, care for it since you're incapable of empathy in concept, maybe then, you'll be sad when you hear about children dying.
@@danon3955 You don't know what they've been through, snowflake. If an expression of simple human emotion triggers you that much, maybe you need to grow a pair. Cuck.
Headshots seem like a clinical and professional way to kill somebody at least in the sense that the person who gets killed dies relatively quickly and painlessly. Poison, electrocution and being shot elsewhere in the body might not look as gory and might still allow for open casket funerals but while that's nice for your relatives burying you, it takes more time and pain to die those ways.
It's not about pain, it's about humanity. Heinrich Himmler was disgusted at the method of fire squads to execute Jews and Slavs in Eastern Europe and at the Wannsee Conference decided a cleaner method to kill was the gas chamber. A headshot destroys the individual, blows pieces of their innards out into the world and instantly eradicates anything human about them and leaves a destroyed stub on a lifeless corpse. A person shot in the body can at least bleed out, give their last words, look you in the eyes and is still a person. Someone shot in the head has been literally dehumanized in an instant.
@@meowcow21 When you reduce killing someone to a mere matter of efficiency you've diminished the significance of the act. Killing someone quick and painless makes you see killing in general as not AS BAD a thing. Hence WHY Himmler chose the more """humane"""" method to carry out the Holocaust because it made killing women and children easier for those doing so.
The thing that's completely missing from media is escalation of violence. Usually when there's conflict, people start with threats, then throwing punches, then threatening with weapons, then the use of weapons, then finally intent to kill. Opening with a headshot is barbaric. I think Undertale is a great example of a video game modeling escalation. Some enemies are reasonable, some will surrender if you beat them, and some are suicidal. Context matters.
that's ENTIRELY subjective and different from a vast amount of scenarios, especially if you want to think about police interactions. I don't particularly recommend doing it since it's rather violent and gets me down in the dumps and messes with my head to watch so much violence, but channels like Police Activity and other active archives of police bodycam footage show that things can go 1-100 in less than a second especially with violent criminals, so much so you don't get a chance to gradually escalate. An officer can be getting handed license and registration one half second and the next half second a loaded sawn off shotgun is in their face. A video game doesn't represent real life at all, no matter how much thought or complexity or careful design you put into it, simulations at least now are no where near capable of projecting real life. If they were humans likely wouldn't exist anymore.
@@luxj.9451 Really? So if someone acts your ego, you're willing to end their life? To make a child parentless, to make someone else homeless, to ruin a family? And you're okay with this?... Really really?? Maybe, instead of just being trigger happy, you should use that experience with violence that you say you have (like me btw), to properly assess the situation and deem if a response in violence is the answer. Maybe, juuuuuust maybe, you could use your brain instead of aiming for someone else's.
@Lurker M Either engage in the conversation or like go do something else you enjoy doing instead of being angry lol. Please stay healthy and love yourself.
@@demetrifrost2546 He's very clearly defining an instance where someone violently attacks him. No one said anything about hurting people's feelings. There's a very clear distinction between the two things. And honestly society would be way better if everyone held up this practice and knew the difference. There should be absolutely no vagueness in an instance where someone is violently attacked and defends themselves rightfully, no matter their political beliefs no matter their race gender, etc. And it is always never okay for someone to attack someone for hurting feelings because that violates both self defense and free speech.
There actually is a "method" for escalation of violence. It is taught for soldiers (national guard), detailing the concept of using "minimum necessary force". Basically, you would use common sense, and go through a few levels of escalation. You try Lv1 first, (being present in uniform) and then Lv2, (clear commands) Lv3... etc. I learned that Lv 6 is deadly force, such a firearms. Even then, you must aim for the chest, not the head. The many police agencies in my area were offered this training, and they declined, claiming it was too "touchy feely." The fact that cops DON'T want to undergo training do things as peacefully as possible really makes me think... What a bunch of fucking losers. I cut meat for a living and my fingers don't like it. But I could get a new job if I wanted. But I seen how cops work. They don't work, not really. So why would they ever get a real job? They get to play with guns and feel like the Big Guy On The Block, and get paid for it, with healthcare and a retirement plan. fuck
The routine of a double tap to the chest and one to the head is called the failure drill or Mozambique Drill. It was based off of a real situation that occurred in Mozambique. A man rounded a corner, encountered an enemy, and shot him twice in the chest. Two shots to the chest is usually more than enough (especially with modern hollow point ammunition), but in this instance the man did not die, so he followed it up with a shot to the head (which actually hit the neck and severed the spinal cord.)
@@handcraftedgetget2918 its very odd to see a comment using the language "Neutralized the target" to describe the act of killing another person on this of all videos. Kind of on the nose tbh
It’s weird because I’ve always considered using headshots in games as more humane. Like one second you’re there, the next you’re gone. When you shoot someone in the chest, they have to suffer for a bit all the while knowing they’re going to die. Fear, shock, sadness. All of that. A headshot is quick and you don’t even know you’re dead. But maybe I’m just a weirdo.
@@theeccentric7263 in popular beliefs, it's more humane than letting a subject that will be killed, to suffer more than just the death. whatever that humane means, it means something significant to the public since slaughterhouses get protested if they don't provide quick and painless death to animals. and since anyone that intended to shoot to kill will kill, the same principle can be applied.
From what I've heard (and I am by no means any sort of expert on this) police and military are trained to aim for the chest because of how bloody difficult it is to hit a headshot in real life. A bullet in the chest is almost as lethal AND an almost guaranteed hit for them trained killers. Games are different. In games enemies may shrug off five pistol shots to the chest and still move at full speed and shoot at you with barely any accuracy penalties. Games are made to feel competitive, not just violent. Violence, if I may say, is more of an afterthought, a psychological load to keep the players engaged in that competitive activity
@@thatlittledude7731 I don't want to get gruesome here, but, brains are mostly water, while lungs are mostly air... Certain other things, such as expanding bullets, are however quite effective at preventing overpenetration (reason why they use these in planes).
Core shots reduce collateral damage and have full stopping power. But bullets aren't magic pills and sometimes multiple body shots do little to show an assailant down. There was a robbery incident where the victims defended their business before calling emergency services. The suspect brought himself to the hospital with five gunshot wounds before police managed to respond to the crime scene.
The actual training is two to the chest, and one to the head. His comment on snipers is also a bit facetious because, even though the US might train for snipers to make body shots, that doesnt mean they always do, or that other militaries do. There is plenty of footage of sniper headshots out there. Core shots generally dont kill as fast as you would think, especially given an angle or a caliber. The human body is quite good at not dying.
watching this from a European country deeply experienced by WWII is such a trip... the imagery of mass executions by shooting people in the head, often on the edge of a grave that the victims usually dug up themselves so that they would fall down to it immedietaly afterwards is so deeply ingrained in our cultural lexicon and so obvious to me... Katyń massacre is the most prominent example of this that comes to mind hearing you approach this topic from such a different point is a very weird experience
Very interesting video about a topic I hadn’t really ever thought of before. I don’t think video games are a direct cause of violence, that’s a ridiculous idea, but we should absolutely question why rewarding lethality and the most efficient way to murder is so prevalent in a lot of the entertainment we consume. Definitely something to think about. Great video, as always
i actually thought about this a lot, because in rdr2 for example you can shoot someone center mass and they'll probably start a very large bleed but they'll still shoot at you, they are still "dead" it's just not immediate, i personally aim center mass a lot unless it's close range because the fact that someone else can shoot back and still kill me even though they are still technically dead themselves is scary at times so headshots are high risk and high reward situations
Video games and media reflect and repurpose our evolving mentality resulting from social change and history. Video games are a monument to our achieved violence, not the catalyst
I must mention a technicality that is fundimental to the final argument: Headshots are applicable in firearms training to dispatch a threat, and are taught to be executed when the head is the only thing visible, and when body shots _fail._ This is very critical as the practice was developed in response to years of instances where shots to “vital” areas of the body might insure eventual death, but fail to incapacitate the target; fail to stop the _immediate_ threat. Most famous is the _Mozambique Drill,_ (developed by Mike Roussaeo and Jeff Cooper, after Roussaeo failed to kill a guerrilla with a double-tap, then followed through with an attempted headshot; successfully severing the spinal cord). This technique became common doctrine in training ever since. The same technique employed in movies like _Collateral_ and _John Wick_ where targets are engaged with speed with the added insurance of the headshot. In my personal experience, my first exposure to the headshot in the realm of clinical, practiced, and real-world applications was in defensive training. We were trained young and old to practice the headshot (a very difficult type of shot) for two primary reasons: 1.) Hostage or obsured target 2.) Failure to stop the threat after two shots to the thorasic cavity (vitals). due to body armor, drugs, missed vitals, and even adreniline. There’s a 2008 shootout where a cop and trained SWAT instructor engaged his attacker with multiple shots to the chest. of the 14 hits, 6 were fatal wounds but the threat still retrieved a second firearm and searched for the cop who was prone by his car. When the attacker knelt to look under the car. A headshot from 3 shots finally ended the threat.
another good example is the 1986 Miami-Dade shootout, one of the suspects, Micheal Platt, was shot 12 times throughout the gunfight, once in the lung, and still managed to kill two FBI agents and seriously wound four others.
if you respect your enemy, then you should expect them to overcome all the pain to get back up and shoot you again. so be like briitsh SAS, put 5 more rounds into the downed bad guy so he wont get up and shoot your team in the back. kinda reminds me of a quote "we are imperfect men been expected to excute a mission perfectly"
and quote from the book "inside delta force" its better to makes an enemy a martyr, then to have his friends hijacking another airplane trying to get him out of the prison.
"Two shots to the thorasic cavity" and if that fails use a headshot. Have you ever been to Front Sight before? Because that's the same advice I remember hearing there.
I was 14 when my parents gave my Mortak Kombat II for the SNES; they were fully aware this was a 17+ game, but they trusted the education they gave me, I guess, and so far, 26 years later, I have been able to held back the urge to crush my enemies' skulls. "Oh, but you don't have enemies". Anyway, great video (as always).
The Saigon headshot is still being misunderstood to this day. Lem's story itself is always strangely separated from the "moral" of the story in which it became framed as a microcosm of America's involvement in Indochina. Even if Loan committed a crime there, Lem's innocence is hard to justify when they found what he did to a family, decapitating an ARVN officer shooting the kids, stabbing an 86 year old grandmother and the wife. one kid survived and had to tend to his dying mother as she bled to death. This was all because Lem wanted the ARVN officer to defect, which he did not. Even if Lem was VC, this seems psychopathic. Even the photographer of the photograph regretted it being an award winning photo of the war, when he wished more of his other photos showing the plight of the Vietnamese were shown. But you're right, it was an important image of shaping the pop cultural conscious of violence through the headshot. The problem people forget though is pictures have a thousand words, and that's just that, a bunch of words but not always the whole story.
could there also be the argument that: "although we all agree the scum should've been executed, it is unAmerican of us to strip someone's right to trial in another country"? I think even the most justified headshot-execution scares us more than the idea of a botched trial leading to one.
@@raziphaz2219 this is a matter of the south Vietnamese govt not the US, so whether it is unamerican or not is a different matter. Loan was a policeman and not a soldier and Lem a guerrilla disguised a a civilian. Even in south Vietnamese law there would have been a trial, but this was during the Tet offensive and so much shit was going on and the literal heat that day got to Loan. Future testimonies of Loan said he regretted it but he may have saved the life of a future US Navy officer who was one of the boat children that emigrated to America.
Keanu shooting people twice in the chest and once in the head (extremely common in the films) is probably an intentional reference to actual drills and professional techniques. It's true that professional soldiers and marksmen do not aim for the head. However those people also do not use pistols or personal defence weapons, generally. FPS games also hold basically no relation to real life, the only ones that do (simulators) also don't encourage headshots really.
A full auto burst of medium caliber is gonna destroy your chest anyway in close quarters, considering bullets have much more energy at short range due to air resistance, while at long range a downed soldier is either an easy target for other shots or can't fight back anyway and also has to be carryed away by the enemy team. You go for headshots only when it's the only part of the body visible, like an mg user. Simulators also can't simulate the pain and stress you get after being shot, you ain't gonna stand still and shoot back after getting hit irl unless it's the only thing you can do or you're under a lot of drugs.
swat style team and counter terrorism units are trained to shoot twice in the body once in the head when doing close quarters combat raids. this is especially true in situations like raiding a captured ship or raiding a landed airplane with terrorists on board
rage 2 is actually interesting in that body armor works, so head shots sometimes are not efficient, you miss a lot if the target is aware because they shake, when you hit it only takes the helmet off, and now the target is aware, and some enemies have metal heads, they are called immortals, and are imune to head shots, but you can dismember the limbs and achieve better results, even if the first shot doesn't incapacitate they are knocked down so you can finish them, but when the enemy is unaware AND unprotected a head shot is still effective
@@WaveOfDestiny Off the top of my head, the main FPS sims i can think of are Red Orchestra, Squad, Arma, aaand a couple of others I don't remember the name of. In all of these games, headshots are basically considered irrelevant as 2-3 submachine gun rounds or a single rifle round to center mass will incapacitate a player. Getting shot in the torso in real life doesn't nessecarily kill you, but for most people it removes that person from the fight. You can practically have a hand blown off and still move around, but severe organ damage tends to knock anyone out.
The two to the chest one to the head is called the Mozambique because in Mozambique guys used to take drugs that made them essentially unstoppable because they couldn't feel pain so cops had to shoot them in the head.
Yea I was once playing that with a friend we were america we went into this shack to shoot and after a while I look to my left and see him get fucking obliterated by some bullet fired from an enemy in the next town over
i haven't played rising storm but i like to snipe a lot in insurgency sandstorm and watching buddies getting revenge sniped is always horrifying to me because typically their head explodes before you hear the shot, so all it is is just a crack of the bullet and a lot of red mist followed by screaming in my ear from my friend getting jumpscared by the bullet
Side note, but I still can't believe no one thought of taking Receiver's mechanic into an horror game. The scramble to get the gun working would add to the panic of any regular ol' horror. Frictional never gives you a way to defend yourself, but what if the way to defend yourself was also a way to play right into the monster's hands?
@@JeanMarceaux The newest Amnesia did something similar too. Very simplified compared to Receiver, but still makes the gun feel clunky rather than an all powerful tool
At that point the cop didn't just kill Mike Brown, he made it so that even at his viewing his death would be an intimidation tactic. His family choosing to either let the world see his destroyed self of tell the story as to why it is a closed casket funeral
@@Smity1234 How do you mot understand? He is referring to a case in which a cop shot a petsonnnamed Mike Brown. I know nothing about the case but its pretty obvious what is meant. He is saying that by shooting MB in the head, this was an intimidation tactic on the part of the shooter, because of how the results effect anyone who aees them. To intimidate the larger community, or at least family. It meant the victims family would either have to show the gore or explain why they have a closed casket funeral. ie forcing them to either expose the gore which would intimidate the community ie 'this is what happens if you fuck with this cop' this intimidating them, or the family hides the result of that shooters crime in way that feels almost complicit, which is intimidating the victims family. Not really sure how you don't understand what that means.
See i think people like you just read way too far into shit, many cops shoot people who are still falling to the ground, the mix of adrenaline and the training of making sure the threat is not a threat to not just you but everyone else around you has a hell of an effect on cops who are just like me and you. They don't have the training of a marine going out to protect the streets of Detroit, even though with how bad Detroit is they should be, but still they're not robots they're just like you and me and they are capable of succumbing to that adrenaline rush and making mistakes. Also headshots aren't always deliberate at all, rarely they are in fact, expecally as i stated earlier, when a person is flailing around and falling to the ground. Not everything is a deliberate at, are there? Sure, but the amount of them that are are insanely low nowadays, 90 percent of the stories of "unarmed" black men people shot by police turn out later to be false and the "unarmed" black man is usually shooting at the cops or trying to kill the cops in some way.
Also, with the rise of body armor militaries HAVE started practicing for headshots, though only in close quarters. It's called a failure-to-stop drill in the USAF, essentially you put two rounds into center mass and one in the head. It makes sure a threat is entirely eliminated in a quick-reaction, close-combat scenario.
@Joe Ç The origin story for the Mozambique Drill is pretty interesting in itself. It was popularized by Colonel Jeff Cooper, a firearms instructor and writer who really pushed the ideas that would create the modern techniques for defensive handgun shooting (such as using two hands and front sight focus). Cooper knew a man who if i recall correctly was a mercenary. This man found himself in a really bad sititation at an airport in Mozambique where he was armed with only his Browning Hi Power pistol and at close range found himself facing an enemy combatant with an AK type rifle in hand. He was able to get two center massed shots off with his 9mm Browning but seeing the enemy wasnt quite incapacitated (while holding an assault rifle) he shot him in the head. Working this all out on the fly, which is remarkably quick thinking if true. Cooper took note of the incident and created a practice drill that he began teaching his students, calling it the Mozambique Drill. There are arguments over the semantics and whether Mozambique vs Failure to Stop includes a pause between the 2nd and 3rd shot for assessment or not but i digress. In any case it seems it was "invented" on the fly as a matter of life or death, which is fascinating in a morbid way if true.
@Christian Morgan Adreneline dumps, it's practised so you do it on reflex during stressful situations. The more you think the more you will mess up, and your brain will try to find the shortcut to make things easier. I hit send before completeing, my bad.
lmao things have been the same for years. it's nothing fucking new. it's like ppl have just realized cops were violent when ppl have been screaming about it since the sixties
Back when we played the good old DayZ mod super actively, I was the designated marksman, always with a sniper rifle. In that game, I never went for headshots. Always torso, safest shot, almost always a direct kill. Heashots were risky, and just for bragging rights. A missed shot could potentially mean a dead squad mate who would not be able to play with us for 30-40 minutes while he respawned and ran back up north.
I wonder if what's happening is not a fetishization of violence but a fetishization of the trappings of the visceral exercise of power. Like, I clicked away from this video and ran smack into an ad for tactical gear, so I came back. I don't need tactical gear. It looks cool, though, and it makes me feel like I'd be stronger for having it. And that feeling of strength does an interesting thing when taken alongside a view of the world as hostile and confining. In that context, strength becomes agency. The stronger you are, the more *you* can choose how your life goes. Buying a gun brings some arguable physical security. But buying a laser sight, foregrip, etc, gives a feeling of increased agency, of the power to enact your will, and this increases the *feeling* of security. I think the problem is, people get high on that feeling of agency and they don't come back. Once someone starts seeing themself as the ultimate arbiter of what is wrong and right in a given context, pulling a trigger becomes trivial, because in the shooter's head, every decision they're making is correct.
Dont know man, to me military stuff has more of a sublime kind of appeal. I mean, sure, thunderstorms and hurricanes are both extremely beautiful and dangerous but are still part of my world, its nature, I am nature too. But a fighter jet for examples feels like so much more, its a giant metal angel zooming around over your head at supersonic speed, a conglomerate and heritage of centuries of technological evolution, but at the same time perfectly capable and actually designed to level me along with half of my neighbourhood. I guess if I was in the airforce it would start to feel like second nature too, just another piece of equipment, but as a civilian who's never been closer to a gun than he has to an officer its extremely fascinating. Being extremely into model making surely doesn't help either. I think war and violence are just fascinating for those who have the luck not to experience it, its navy seals and snipers now, it was cowboys and martial artists some decades ago, and before it was warships, flintlock pistols, plated armor, greatswords, steel blades and so on. It's inherently fascinating as long as you keep away from either the giving or the receiving end of a bullet.
I mean, I feel the same way, but that's sort of the thing I'm wondering about. Watching a jet-fighter or an airstrike gives a kind of contact-high on that feeling of agency and power, and I think it's easy to wax poetic about military hardware for that same reason. For what it's worth, in the above comment I'm not talking about "fetishization" as a sex thing. I mean it sort of more in the original sense. In our society, military power is a god, and lots of us perform rituals or carry tokens of its worship. And I'm not strictly convinced this is a good thing. Granted, I don't think it's all bad either. I find gunsmithing and fighter jets and the study of warfare to be interesting because I'm a geek and I like digging into the technicality of things. But I think we as a society might've gotten sort of a little too high on our go-to way of defining will and freedom and power. Which is not to say we need to about-face, focus on different entertainment, and radically revise our society. I'm not sure we can. Given how acclimated we are to saturating our entertainment in the trappings of military power, it would feel weird and boring not to have any of it, and entertainment that is weird and boring gets ditched immediately. But I think there is some value in second-guessing how good it feels to see a successful airstrike strike, or a well-modded firearm, or a headshot, and I'm grateful there are games that challenge that good feeling by studying and deconstructing it.
@@ghostbearlabs sure, all I am saying is that there is more than one way to enjoy military stuff and besides that war and violence are a part of who we are as humans, and we can't just leave it behind or deny the role it has in our existence. the computer you are reading this on wasn't born as an instrument of peace, and all of the technology that surrounds you wasn't either. I am all for preventing violence in real life, but I think it would be wrong as a specie to try eliminating our violent nature, specially when we are talking of fictional violence. that is not to say we should mindlessy consume it, like you said it's nice to look back on those themes and reflect on what they mean to us. but I dont think that it is wrong for us to have fun by blowing up fictional nazis, firing cool rifles in a range or spending ours building scale reproductions of our time's most efficient angels of death, looking at their romanticized glorious beauty being aware of their cold, sinister purpose. now of course this comes with a sense of empowerment, but at least to me it feels like affirmation of humanity, mostly as our potential as humanity, to either do great or horrible thing with the power these tools give us. also, completely off topic but I am sorry for not being as eloquent as you, I am no english speaker and I never was good with words to begin with
@@npc6817 Whoah, anyone who said you're not an English speaker is wrong. And you're definitely eloquent. Like, if you were ever worried about either of those things, don't be. I agree that it would be weird to eliminate stories of violence from our entertainment. I don't think we should do that. By the same token, I don't want to knock going to a gun range, making models, wargaming, etc. Honestly, I like those things, and I don't want to make an argument that takes away anyone's sense of fun from those things. I *do* think that our nature might be a lot less violent than people like to believe it is, but I don't have a good way of proving that. Specifically re: the computer, I dunno if I'd say it wasn't born as an instrument of peace. I think it's more accurate to say that computer advances come out of whatever part of society the money's in. Babbage's work was funded by the treasury and intended for, I think, financial and astronomy applications. Turing, on the other hand, was active during WWII, and as such the military was where the funding money was. Since WWII (at least in America), the military has remained a massive well of money that can be used to fund anything that has potential defense applications. But if that same budget was allocated to health, or interstellar exploration, or launching deer into the sun, I think that's where the computing advances would be.
ghostbearlabs this applies to literally every type of escapism in our society, from the makeup industry to intelectual diatribes Perhaps they are even more common in diatribes actually, for example i often get the impression that videos like these serve to justify already existing beliefs instead of seriously analizing anything, by which metric, for example, can we say that violence in our current society is glorified? Glorified in comparison to what? Epic myths of heroic figures slaying monsters? Is it the society that glorifies the violence or is it just how humans always have done it? Judging by history, it seems that either this is more or less how we always understood violence, or more likely that victory bias is at play here, and tribes that dont have this culture perish where as tribes that do, don't What do you think of this?
I am surprosed there is no mention of zombie movies in this. In the Night of the Living Dead, a headshot was literally the only way to dispatch a zombie. This seems extremely relevent to the period covered by Quinlain. The fact that these movies were intended to be shocking and graphic must say a lot about the sensibilities at that time. The most significant aspect of headshots must surely be that it necessitates looking at the victim's face. Ordinary (non-psychopaths) find it much more difficult and traumatising to kill another human being when they can see their face. This makes the cop killings much more chilling as it implies that they have been trained to behave this way. That behaviour is a long way from normal.
This is a great point, because how are older mythological beings killed? A werewolf is shot in the heart with a silver bullet, and a vampire staked through the heart.
As much as I get the op's point, and it is an excellent observation, I feel like the addition of "this implies they were trained to behave this way" is unneeded. The truth of the matter is that shooting someone in the head is not only not taught to be normal but its the result of mental instability. An incident that I forget the date of involved a mentally ill gamer who started committing crimes then shooting at cops. The man after his apprehension stated that life is just gta. The man had a legitimate and utter belief that gta was reality. Things like headshots happen in real life when someone isnt thinking rationally or doesnt have any experience or training. If almost all media portrays headshots as "instant death" then if your panicked, mentally unstable, or just not thinking and your intent is killing your opponent why NOT go for the head? Whats to lose? "Its not brutal they die instantly". Thats the logic that can occur. Alot of cop killings CAN result in bias but not all do. If somone is being violent and they have an unknown likelihood of having a gun or other weapon do you have time to check yourself if your being "racist" or not. My personal answer is no, the most you have time for, and only with a controlled and calm mind, is "can he hurt me?, can he hurt others?, can he hurt himself?, how can I end the situation the safest?" Unfortunately the latter answer is sometimes lethal force. I by no means am refuting that the tragedy referenced in the video was justified nor am I saying that cops can sometimes do dumb, brutal, sadistic, or just monstrous things. Their human too, we ALL ARE. We all can do terrible things. I'm calling attention to the unfortunate "fatalities" of the recent rights movements. In the public light now alot of people veiw cops as having malice in their actions. Officers simply caught in a terrible situation are now displayed as similar or the same to those with malice and bias for doing something lethal to escape a one way out situation. Even when involved scientific evidence proving bias influencing split second decisions the point still rings true. If YOU were caught in a situation where killing someone was the ONLY way out, and you had the choice between killing somone white or black who would you choose. Deep down it is difficult to overcome a bias towards our own race, their like us, their familiar, the bias can in fact be overcome but when put in that split second situation a person of the same race can seem almost similar to family in a watered down primitive sort of way. Not all officers killing blacks have malintent but some DO. Therefore all are assumed to be the same, after all how can you know? I cannot express enough also how nice it is to see on these videos civilized and intelligent debate instead of a bunch of one party mass flaming a video and getting "triggered" because it dared go against the grain. (A side note abot the word triggered, I believe it should be used genuinelyand truthfully those who have unpleasant memories or experiences brought to mind in an unbearable kind of way, not for a middle aged woman being so drastically appalled that a speaker or media or anything DARE speak about things in history that were graphic. Also I believe that trigger warnings should be implemented in some sense but their also kind of self implemented)
Fun fact: my grandpa is one of the reasons the Saigon execution photo was taken! a general was being flown in and the officers in Saigon wanted to make sure it seemed that they were being productive, so they made sure to perform the execution as the general drove past (my grandpa was the one driving the general around)
@@Mortablunt one question assumes guilt from the officer while the other question assumes the state is correct in killing its own citizens and then look for offending behavior to justify it after the fact.
You think another parrot screeching about guns causing violence (no matter how roundabout the implication is, instead of being direct), while racebaiting at the same time, is somehow "original"? Dude...
@@UCvow2TUIH0d2Ax2vik9ILzg Guns were literally made to be violent... What are you talking about? There's no such thing as racebaiting and it doesn't apply here because cops aren't a race.
@@IaMSpeaks This is fucking race baiting. Last five minutes are all about how "we" (assuming white) have been working to dehumanise black people. Personally I don't mind.
I think you forgot one other key factors as to why video games (and really a lot of media) will focus on headshots: the widespread manufacture and adoption of Kevlar. Now, media has portrayed soft body armor with about the same level of realism and accuracy as they do actual guns, but the fact remains that since about the late 90s and early 2000s, when you watch an action movie and a character is shot in the chest, half of the time there's a gotcha of "they didn't die because they were wearing a bulletproof vest under that suit!" It's not farfetched to think video games would be influenced similarly. I think it's also important to note that headshots weren't always a trope in video games. After all, Doom, Duke Nukem, Quake? To my knowledge, almost none of the earliest FPSes had headshot mechanics. The earliest you could name is TF Classic, and you've probably done way more research than I have.
I think it’s definitely a better question to ask what influence video games have on our perception of violence than whether or not they directly cause it, I think in particular the increasing number of games framing themselves within ‘realism’ will always have consequences on how we perceive real violence
You know a weird example? Quake Champions. As an arena shooter that tries to be somewhat true to its roots, there's no such thing as a critical hit. Shoot the tip of someone's toe or right between their eyes and it does the same amount of damage. BUT, kill someone with a headshot from an appropriate weapon and you're rewarded with a badge and the narrator announcing "headshot". There's even daily quests that might ask for a certain number of headshots, even though they do nothing and actually make it harder to score a kill. It's still very jarring for me to see headshots in the game that taught me to aim low.
Quakes main rival was unreal tornament who's dominatrix announcer said Headshot in a voice that can only be called orgasmic. Linking skillful shots with pleasure forever. ruclips.net/video/6dWPPgHj8rM/видео.html
" there's no such thing as a critical hit." critical hits in other games = 1 shot kill or even less, quake had that to begin with making it double means nothing, games like cs/overwatch/apex are slow so hitting for headshots is easyer even tho you need more pinpoint accuracy, quake was very fast but instead no need for headshots allready hard enough to flick targets
Now I'm not sure about original Quake 3 Arena, but if I recall correctly, the free web version/remaster(?) Quake Live had headshots available only with the Railgun (which is a sniper style weapon). Hitting shots with the Railgun is hard to do in such a fast paced environment and you're putting yourself at great risk during the weapon's long reload/recharge period (during which you can't switch to another one), so it makes sense to reward really good players who can consistently hit a single pixel on a screen of about 2 million, all while it's moving at 300mph. If the above is true, then Quake Champions just evolved this or, if it's not, they implemented it afresh to keep up with the times. Either way, it takes more skill to hit the head than any other part of the body, especially at that speed.
@@antipsychotic451 No, "high risk, high reward" is just a set phrase. "Reward" is being used in the sense it's used in AI research, where "reward" is just "achieving the intended outcome", regardless of whether that outcome is good or bad.
@@antipsychotic451 i think the saying goes "it's impossible to hate someone more than you hate yourself". Which would explain your username and the complete over reaction to the term "reward" being used when talking about killing. Virtue signaling always does the opposite for the people who can see beyond fake morals.
There is one more situation where shooting someone in the head is preferable over going for a body shot, as discussed in the Anthony Horowitz book Snakehead: When the target is wearing body armour.
I mean truly, if your within 8 feet of someone you should always go for that headshot because chances are at that range you won't miss and it doesn't leave the target the chance for the bullet to not hit a vital spot in their chest and for them to shoot back or whatever they're trying to do. The head is all a vital spot and there's no chance for the bullet to not kill unless you are extraordinarily unlucky.
rewatching this in the context of the current protests and police behavior really makes you think about medias glorification of stoic armed heros, Video-games don't cause violence and that's supported, but I think people's ideas of the role of "heros" or "protectors" (specifically men's) obligations and actions when armed leaks into the police force quite visibly.
At the time of me writing this comment its the first time I saw the video. He did a great job with all the infromation prior to the look at police brutality. Then it hit home and I think it makes this video all the more important. As stated in the video, police aren't trained to aim for the head, so why, in so many police killings, does the officer go for the head? It's a terrifying relatity that media, press, even leaders either glorify or focus on how the killing was done and who did it. I remember a conversation years ago. When you focus on the killer and how he/she killed someone, it glorifies the person and reinforces that idea in others. When a shooting happens, be it one victim or many, we should focus on who the victim(s) was(where). There shouldn't be glory in the kill, instead the focus should be the mourning.
@@bigolgreasemangreg1314 So either get murdered by an armed thug, or get murdered by a government sanctioned armed thug? As a Brit, the concept of the police being dangerous is totally strange to me. In the UK, most police don't have guns, and those who do are given very rigerous training, and even then, most firearms officers go their entire career without ever firing a shot on duty as shooting someone is a last resort option after non-lethal methods haven't worked. Armed and dangerous police is not normal in the rest of the world.
You saying "I'll give you these papers for free" is actually really amazing! Knowledge gate keeping sucks hard. The paywall to a resource meant to improve society is super dumb.
@@robokill387 how is gate keeping knowledge beneficial to anyone except the wallets of those in ivory towers? Having free access to more knowledge would only be good
@@Goblin4Coin i think the essence of gatekeeping itself was the thing they were talking about. non-gatekept fandom usually turns to shit with many weird people doing weird things. non-gatekept research papers can be interpreted wrongly and the wrong interpretation can be perceived as correct in the public. not to mention bad research papers can gain traction as factual too (ex. dunning-kruger effect is now being debated whether it's actually real or not (apparently the statistics were autocorrelation)) gatekeeping doesn't have to act like a bouncer on da club. just making sure someone got the correct idea of the subject they're participating in is enough
"...where JFK's 'self' was destroyed. The frame where he went from the president to an annihilated object." Holy mother of Buddha your words are brilliant. Please continue shining in this fashion. Oh holy thing. Φ
Actually, not only did the grunt birthday party not distract from the fun, it made me cherish the headshots more, and try to master it with every weapon.
ok I watched this first at least a year ago and it's been echoing around my brain since so I'm back. Excellent work! I learned so much and I think about this essay every time I make a headshot in a game!
Just have to comment on one thing. at the mention of the john wick fighting style. It is basic military training, when you fire upon your target. You always shoot 2 to the body 1 to the head, it is to ensure your opponent does not get back up. John wick is showing extremely good military tactics and weapon handling in the movie, so it is not surprising when he shoots into the body then finishes with the head.
Eh, that's not really standard training or what you'd use in most cases AIU. It sounds like you're referencing the Mozambique/Failure drill, which AFIK is usually just recommended for when you're in a close quarters engagement whilst using a pistol, which allows you a lot more room in terms of hitting your target but you still have to be a pretty alright shot . Otherwise at the distance and context most military engagements happen in, trying to hit the head is far less than ideal. Plus, per se a "kill" isn't really even the need most of the time, that's why FMJ is used (a part from it being illegal to use hollow points in war) because a shot but still alive soldier is much more of a burden than a body and most people are done in a firefight after getting shot at least once, especially considering bullets can turn bones into powder and organs into paste.
@@Speedojesus the reason it's not really standard training for militarys is because it's typically a bad practice to commit war crimes, which is pretty much what it is because the last shot to the head is to stop anyone who is injured from getting up and killing you forcing you into another fight that you may not want, but it is a war crime to shoot an injured man who isn't actively combative which someone with multiple shots to the chest probably wouldn't be now a man who is shot but gets up and continues to fight is combative but you still have to try to secure the person and they may not always be immediately back into action after getting shot, the mozabique drill is still really good for home defense against multiple intruders and such because it puts a person out of action without a chance of retaliation and after 2 shots to the chest the headshot won't be that difficult to get
@@Speedojesus to be fair, "close quarters engagement whilst using a pistol" accurately describes a LOT of the fights where John Wick is using the Mozambique drill.
At roughly the 18 minute mark theres a statement thats not entirely accurate. "When do we shoot someone in the head in real life? Almost never" Or something along those lines. And for the most part, this is correct. However there is a noteable exception from the military. Its not snipers, but actually during CQB. Its standard procedure to aim right for the center of the face when room clearing. Its taught in manuals and in training. Its the preferred way to kill someone in that context. The reason being, it prevents retaliation. Even with a heart shot, it can take a couple seconds before the target is actually dead, during which time theyre still a potential threat. But if you shoot them right in the face, theyre dead instantly most of the time. But if you can't shoot them in the face, then shoot them twice in the heart. Headshot is ideal, but not always practical. So thats when a double tap to the chest comes in. Its not uncommon for special forces operators to shoot people again after they go down, just to make sure theyre dead.
There's another one as well. Taliban in Afghanistan often fight while blazed out of their minds on marijuana so if you body shot them they just keep coming. So if it is practical to do so you should aim for the head.
Characters like Anthony Carmine from Gears of War or Kat from Halo Reach also really sell how it feels to have an ally- one right next to you even, have their self destroyed right in front of you. Mid sentence even in both cases. They're stark reminders in war stories that not every sacrifice has a real reason behind it, nor are they necessarily the choice of our heroes all the time, and how instantaneous that action can really be. It's an interesting to be on the receiving end of the same action you've been putting others through gleefully up until that point.
This video could have been 30 minutes longer and I wouldn't have noticed. I really enjoyed your take along with the references provided. I look forward to more of your work. Please keep it coming.
Love the use of "The Beginner's Guide" music at the video's emotional peak, just like the game. My favorite narrative driven game of all time. Love your stuff, keep up the great work.
My drama teacher in high school told me one time that he didn't mind violence or foul language only if it was necessary to tell the story accurately and artistically. Being able to separate the art from real life is normal and something that menatally disturbed and violent people cannot do.
That execution photo you displayed gave me a really bad impression on the executor: Nguyễn Ngọc Loan. It's only a while later that I found out that the one being executed - Nguyễn Văn Lém - was not exactly as innocent as I thought. And I know that this video isn't being made to comment on that specific picture, but I think you'd still bring your point across without having to paint such a bad picture on the executor.
the relevance to the video is the cultural reaction to the picture. someone doesn't have to be a good person for their photographed death to be traumatizing.
@@JacobGeller If that's it relevance to the video then telling the viewers the full context wouldn't hurt it. And neither will it affect your point of "someone doesn't have to be a good person for their photographed death to be traumatizing".
@@e.c2623 I think you don't understand the purpose of making a video essay. Or maybe you don't understand the horror of war, violence, and death, on a human, gorey, sit-in-the-bathtub-unable-to-move, way. Who knows. But in case it's the former, please consider how sloppy it would be to write an essay and make unnecessary tangents. I think the result would be a 40 min video full poor transitions, unclear arguments, and i believe it would be difficult to pay attention to.
It was never definitively proven that Loan killed the Tuan family. It's almost as if summarily executing someone without an actual trial is a war crime because it robs anyone of definitive answers.
Why did you feel uncomfortable exactly? What did the video teach you that you didn't already know? I play Halo and I know that killing feels good. The point of the game is to put the player in a stressful situation, just like the battlefield, where every shot counts and the faster you eliminate the threat, the quicker you can reach the next goal point. I still have empathy for those in the real world that die and no longer become people. I don't see the correlation between viewing the in-game enemies as inhuman and viewing people in the real world the same way, do you?
7:03 To give a bit of reference to that picture: The suspect, was cought the night before on the site of a mass grave, where vietcong agents had killed the families of lot's of vietnamese police and military personell during the Ted offensive. He then was subsequently trialed for his war crimes he commited disguised as a civilian. The price winning picture however, ruined the life of the colonel - as he was deemed the monster in this picture and became involuntarily the face of violence in war. allthatsinteresting.com/saigon-execution
Yup, that's what happens when you shot a restrained man in the head to a public not entirely desensitized to violence. If he'd had waited for the rope or the firing squad to do the deed, nobody would have given a shit.
@@polocatfan Wasn't a combatant and another combatant, it was a guy who murdered a guy's family, and the guy who's family was murdered. If you think that situation was even remotely close to a soldier being taken prisoner in WWII or something then that's pedantry, that specific situation embodies the exact reason why people will always commit war crimes and why wringing your hands over it is pointless. I would do the same thing, if you wouldn't it means you're a coward (i suspect you would regardless), though neither of us are placed in the situation, luckily enough.
I read in a book recently that the journalist regretted taking that picture for the rest of his life, 1. because he knew the Colonel was a good man in a bad situation just doing his duty, and 2. because he never wanted to be famous for a picture of murder.
@@polocatfan Kind of like in the Russian Civil War. Red Army committed a War Crime (firing on non hositle White Army soldiers who headed towards them under the Red’s false peace) and the Whites executed them in turn. Problem is, for all the talk of how War Crimes are wrong (and they ARE wrong) many do NOT talk about how, let’s face it, unless you can prevent one domino from falling, they WILL fall. It’s human nature.
Dang, violent video games decidedly don't cause violence, but they may have something to do with some people's indifference to irl violence. That's scary.
If you really think misnaming a firearm somehow nullifies his entire argument than you are probably as thick as pig shit and the entire thesis of this passed over your head.
I watched your work on Shadow of the Colossus on a different browser, mostly because I've learned that RUclips will do some crazy things to my recommendations if I watch willy nilly. Then I watched your video on Daughters of Ash, having kinda forgotten who you were. Then I watched this video. I won't say this video is the one that made me subscribe or think about donating in the future, but this video tied it all together. Your careful research, how deeply you care, the respect with which you approach the topic. It made me cry. You're amazing. Keep it up.
Using Resident Evil 4 as examples of headshots in video games I feel is a bit misplaced because Resi 4 actually subverted it a lot. Headshots were usually most effective early game but mid to late game it wasn't. Most of the enemies could take more than 1 headshot and it usually wasn't the most effective way to dispatch them. A good example is an enemy running at Leon could be shot in the leg which would stun them or knock them to the ground. Allowing you to knife them to save ammo. You could also shoot an enemy's weapon out of their hand. There were also enemies with helmets that shielded their heads, including some miniboss and boss style enemies. The developers used their then advanced targeting and enemy reaction system to give the player reasons to not just shoot at the head. Bear in mind later games with advanced targeting systems like Fallout 3 didn't even bother to do any of this, there is no reason to not headshot an enemy using VATS. So Resi 4 has to be commended in this regard.
@@truedarklander you're right, they arent. However an assassin that specifically targets soldiers families and has a body count of well over 34 people is, here's a direct quote: "...he [Nguyễn Văn Lém] was an assassin and the leader of a Viet Cong death squad who had been targeting and killing South Vietnamese National Police officers and their families." Additionally, "he was more or less caught in the act, at the site of a mass grave. This grave contained the bodies of no less than seven South Vietnamese police officers, as well as their families, around 34 bound and shot bodies in total." You can read more here: www.google.com/amp/s/cherrieswriter.com/2015/08/03/the-story-behind-the-famous-saigon-execution-photo/amp/
@@junglistmassiv Hitler wasn't a "unarmed soldier" He was a war criminal, and court marshalls would 100% of the time give him death penalty much like what his henchmen got.
@shcrodinger's Lion More like Schrödinger's dickhead, except you are definitely a dick head from what I gather Cop on, If you were half as smart as you think you are you wouldn't be posting bullshit online
yeah, headshots are really the most humane.. this video makes no sense... from the "headshot" angle... a gun is a weapon meant to kill.. and if your going to kill... go for the head... saves ammo, saves pain....
@@SarethZhukov314 thats not nescarrily true. It depends on a lot of things, like how accurate you are, how far is your attacker, your enviroment. But say your attacker also has a gun, it is definetely better to shoot him in the head than the body because even if he is shot in the body he could still shoot you. It will take time for him to die. The basement scene from Inglorious bastards shows this really well, that people shot and hurt can still fire.
This was way more interesting than I expected it to be going in. So much more depth than I was anticipating, and different directions of thought as well.
This is a topic that I think about a lot, but you're the only channel I've ever seen discussing it at length. I'm somewhat of a gaming addict myself and I often go through phases of wanting to be hopeful about upcoming releases but ultimately dissatisfied because of the predominant trope of killing as many things as possible, as efficiently as possible. This exists in many forms of media, especially those targeted at masculine audiences. Having recently finished Death Stranding, I have hope that titles diverging from said trope will be increasingly produced and celebrated.
You know, one of the things I appreciate about red dead redemption 2, is that the heart is also a crit spot.
Same goes for rising storm 2 veitnam any form of gunshot to the head or heart spells instant death to the one on the wrong end of the gun
Although for some reason everytime I look at the health of squad commanders they seem to have always sustained minor heart damage maybe a balancing thing to do with grenades
And the balls lmao
the brain can function for well over 7 minutes after the heart stops beating
@@landlockedcroat1554 Well I mean when you get shot you usually get knocked to the ground, so even if they're technically alive they're more like a twitching mess of blood than walking around alive
And the throat.
Kinda feel bad when the policeman or goon I shot is just left to choke out on their blood...
“haha I know this song, it’s “Ain’t That A Kick In The-“
o h
I thought it was familiar
@@konig-shiba6428 same
Which song? I only heard love will tear us apart.
Literally only know that song cause fallout nv
I'm enjoying the fact that everyone who responded to this comment missed the point of this comment.
Regarding Rosemary Kennedy, one of the most heartbreaking details is that her mother, Rose, only found out that she was still alive when she was cleaning out her husband's desk after his death. She, like everyone else, had been told that Rosemary died.
The reason why Rosemary had some developmental issues before the lobotomy was probably because the doctor was late attending her birth, so the nurses tried to prevent it from happening until he could arrive (delivering a Kennedy being a big status symbol). This likely starved her of oxygen at a crucial stage.
monsters
@@yungjoemighty879 I hate humanity more than I can even express.
additionally, a LOT of her developmental "issues" were mostly quirks - she was unable to really understand/follow social norms of the time, like "don't talk to men without your father present" or other oppressive systems of the age. The true reasons will likely never come out, but her mother and brothers knew that she had boyfriends and casual flings, and she may have been bisexual as well - both of which would be well enough for Kennedy Sr. to force a lobotomy on her, so she didn't cause a "scandal" for the Kennedy family.
They destroyed a woman so completely because she was free and loved life.
@@JRexRegis That's what people do. They crush the freedom of others in order to maintain their own.
@@JRexRegis jesus christ that’s rough
"of course, Rosemary isn't the first Kennedy people think of when traumatic brain injuries come up... (slowly pans up to JFK)" I fucking lost it
And Robert.
Please for the love of God
@@johnf.kennedy5264 woh
@@johnf.kennedy5264 fun fact: upon hearing the news, Jimmy Hoffa hopped onto a stool and started cheering
Same bro
I believe William Golding was ahead of his time with this, in Lord of the Flies, Piggy is killed by a large rock being dropped and knocking him off of a cliff. His corpse falls 40 feet and his head is smashed open when he lands on the rocks below. Piggy went from being alive to murdered in cold blood once the rock hit him. But he stops being a person once his head is in pieces and his brain is reduced into flecks of pink and red matter that has been plastered into the granite. His brain is simply referred to as "stuff", just "his head opened and stuff came out and turned red". Piggy's brain, his mind, his greatest strength, had been reduced to mere stuff,
and that is chilling.
why was I made to read this book in 9th grade again ?
@@corvicore6813 Same here, but I think that's a reasonable age to be honest. Piggy's death is easily the most graphic part in the book, and it isn't any worse than what a standard 15 year old would encounter in media nowadays anyway. As for the themes in the book, by their mid - teens most people have already decided that the world is terrible without a book telling them so. Not that that particular scene wasn't disturbing though, it definitely gave me the intended sense of dread for a week or so
corvicore it’s about the Loss of innocence. Which also coincides with the age of adolescence. It’s a time when you realize you’re not a kid anymore, but you’re still not an adult. It’s an alienating experience, kinda like being stuck on a deserted island ya know...
@@alexandertheaccursed1627 Absolutely
His name is not “piggy” 🥀
"Who is the esrb to stand above the tora?" 10/10 best voice line
true that, but "its like his gun is a stapler" is a close second
@@noahmorris1015 But he brought RE4 as a top example of a "headshot game", despite being the only game I've ever seen to punish you with stronger enemies for shooting them in the head, and making you feel regret (as a mistake that hinders your progress) for doing so.
@@justsomeone5314 sure! but the craziness of the line is enjoyable within or without context. at least that's how i see quotes like those. you bring up an interesting point!
MGSV punishes you for headshots by issuing helms to troops across the map. Also punishes for choosing to do missions at night by giving NVGs to enemies, and body shots by giving body armor. So on and so forth. Wasn’t the game it should have been, but it was still very good.
What's a tora? Is that some kind of toilet paper brand?
i always saw shooting the gun out of someone's hand as the ultimate expression of sharpshooting prowess. theirs something almost defiant about it. the fact that the person wielding the gun know's that it is designed exclusively for killing but through preforming this neigh impossible act they have circumvented not only the intentions of their enemy but of their own weapon.
True true quick sharpshooting has a lot more impressive potential shots than just the head.
That's why I always loved the RDR duels so much, you are considered honorable and rewarded if you disarm your opponent rather than killing him
Yes, it is way more cool and impressive, but my monkey brain likes being able to loot the bodies.
@@stm7810 -just extort them for their possessions after disarming them lmao-
@@aurus7245 yeah, but that reduces my karma stat. :D
"It's like his gun is a stapler" man, I don't know your dad but that's such a keen observation. That phrase is going to stay with me as I watch more movies
@ashy Like, I loved that phrase, I'm going to remember it while watching more movies. The guy on the screen will be like "bang bang bang" and I'll be thinking "Hey it's like his gun is a stapler"
@ashy maybe it has to do with how generous and thoughtless he seems to be when he shoots. Shooting someone with the same gravity of stapling papers, same 'pop' but different object. I'm honestly not so sure either but here's my take and it might make sense.
"Who's the ESRB to stand up to the Word of God?" is such a raw fucking line holy shit
For real
Made me spit out my hot chocolate.
@@tortis6342 I should make some!
@@PaulRudd1941 haha I got this notification as I was drinking my own hot chocolate.
“Who are the esrb to stand up to the word of God?” This is the most chaotic sentence ever
i mean, according to the story of the oven of akhnai, anyone could be equal to standing up to the word of god because not only is the torah a secondary source, it's the possession of the people of earth now so we decide what the rules mean for ourselves and use our own judgement on whether to follow them or not
-I'd like to point out that the reason people got shot in the chest in old movies is special effects feasibility. Having the actor mime being hit in the clothing or rigging them with squibs later is much easier than creating a gunshot wound to the head special effect.
-US Army doctrine as early as the 80's (oldest manual I read while serving, it was yellow and dog-eared, on some random bookshelf) was "two in the chest, one in the head" at close range.
Yup. The latter advice is also codified in handgun shooting as the Mozambique Drill. It combines reliability of center mass fire and the rapid neutralization of a threat well and is easy to train for.
Mozambique Drill
@@CommanderTornado Now I suddenly realise why "Two in the chest, one in the head" is a voice line for Bangalore in Apex Legends when using the Mozambique Pistol, even though it's not the best way to use that weapon.
@@sabinekine2737 I've always thought that, since the pistol has 3 barrels, the top, central one would hit the head while the bottom two would hit the chest. That would, effectively, turn the Mozambique Drill into just one trigger pull instead of three.
shut up troop
I frequently think of a time when I was in the 3rd grade. A girl in my class had a brother in the military and had come to speak to our class about his experiences. Near the end there was an opportunity for us to ask questions. I’ll never forget the awkward silence that followed after a 3rd grade kid asked if the veteran in front of us who had seen combat if he had ever gotten a headshot.
okay but did he
Would have been a bit more awkward if the kid asked if he'd ever taken one.
Attacking the head has always been associated with the fastest way to kill someone. We used to behead people with swords, axes, and guillotines well before firearms, and then put their heads on display on spikes, like you said, as a representation of that person. So the head was associated with a person's personality and their life force well before the heart shot became a thing.
@No Faith It was dipshit Hayes code
Thank you for your wise words sun tzu
fun fact: firearms existed several hundred years before the guillotine
@@iansteelmatheson I'm aware of that, but my point still stands...
HOLY FUCK IT'S SUN TZU!
You don't avoid the head because of the trophy. The brain inside the cranium of most animals is a very small target and a near miss will keep the animal alive to have a painful death. There used to the a video on youtube of a doe with her jaw missing due to a poacher's botched shot. The person who filmed it said he had asked permission from the property owner to put her down but wasn't allowed. That deer died either from infection or from being unable to eat. Hence most people consider it inhumane. There are hunters who aim for the head because they trust their skills and try to get much closer to the animal to decrease the chances of a miss but most people consider it a poor practice.
Titanium Rain I avoid the head because of the trophy shooting a deer buck or doe in the head will kill it (unless you barley graze it) but then again I like to watch my dad skin the deer especial the buck I shot but it is unethical and inhuman to shoot the deer in the head first brains everywhere second shooting in the heart makes there pain receptors stop working hell even a shot to the leg will it’s body will stop the pain on purpose if it happens extremely fast and is painfully as all hell next it will bleed out extremely fast if you shoot of the ascending aorta like I did then you get to keep the deer heart but still head shots are a no go well at least for me and my family
You aim for the heart and lungs in a deer and nowhere else. It's quick and respectful. Or so I'm taught.
@@Sputterbugz shooting the deer in a headshot makes it even more worst because their brain is kinda small and the bullet can hit weird making it suffer even more. You just don't shoot the head unless you are absolutely very surely stupidly positively it's gonna penatrate and kill it. Shooting the lungs or heart is just how you do quick and cleanly and how it been done for years. It's not like in a videogame.
TeaRex844 still a shot to the brain would be quicker, but like you've said because of how difficult it is to actually hit the brain it's not worth the risk of missing and to just target the vital organs. Though personally I don't believe in trophy hunting. Hunting for food, yes. But trophy hunting has no real purpose besides taking pleasure in killing. Killing to preserve your own life, the life of someone else is completely justifiable. But killing just to have the pleasure of taking a life is disgusting to me.
@@Sputterbugz If you manage a shot to the heart or lung it's quicker than a bleedout. It's important to consider that when shooting a powerful enough caliber, you have a chance of paralyzing the front limbs which immobilizes the animal. Meanwhile if you hit the skull and because of the angle it glances off or goes through the neck, you might have a wounded animal that will run off and now you have to track it through the woods.
If you want to put a second shot through the head once immobilized no problem, but consider that you can be aiming at the head and making a noise can cause an animal like a deer to twist his head and look for the source of the noise. If this happens when you're about to shoot you can miss.
I literally didn't realize this was from a year ago until now.
It's sad isn't it
@@jaegs1935 RUclips recommendations are sad, yes.
he triggered it
yeah... it just keeps happening
Brug I didn't realize it was from 2 years ago until I read this
Amazing essay. I do a lot of headshot reactions when I motion capture video games, from multiple angles, falling at different speeds in different directions. Sometimes I'll do 100 of these things in a row. Game developers are always looking for new visceral headshot ideas. During these mocap sessions I'm frequently reminded of the al-qaida training video with real kids killing real prisoners, and I'll find myself mimicking those real deaths, sometimes subconsciously, because after 50 deaths you start searching the recesses of your brain for inspiration to keep working. Admittedly it feels very strange after doing that for a day (at my company I've literally done "reaction days"... Not a good idea for a stuntman.) I don't recommend watching that video, but unfortunately it might have helped me get a bunch of mocap contracts.
damn
Do you mostly do Mocap for games, or do you do movie Mocap as well?
I'm just fascinated by people who work in the field, how they got started, etc.
Outside of normal acting classes, do people heavily into Mocap work take courses of that's what they wish to pursue? or is it pretty much just like acting, except wearing the suits and technology?
For example, seeing behind the scenes of avengers, The gentleman playing Hulk is fully in Mocap gear even wearing a tall stick up his back with a Ball showing wear hulks head would be for other actors & the camera.
while someone like Robert Downey JR is just wearing a physical chest plate of his Iron man armor, but has Mocap Pants and Arm Sleeves with all the patters for a computer to read & render on top, and he might have dots on his face if it's a scene showing him with his helmet down.
Then seeing the pioneering work that went into Golem in LOTR and Caesar in the recent Planet of the apes movies.
or seeing the 3 actors from GTA V talking about their Mocap experience, and the crazy things they would have to do that they never did in movie or TV.
and they said how with some games it can involve so much more work because there is so much varying dialogue that changes based on the players choice & input.
and how video game scripts make movie scripts look like reading a short book report....lol.
props to what you do, man. Much luck to you.
They're is a specific one that works it's the limp your body goes from straight to completely limp but I would suggest stretching and head gear when you fall
Those videos are visceral but interesting, seeing someone from walking to falling limp like a sack of potatoes is morbid but intriguing.
The realistic reactions are the most visceral. No dramatic posing or thrashing like it's an 80s film. Just immediately falling in whatever natural way the body would, like a marionette with its strings cut.
man, NONE of my friends, religious or otherwise, would be able to come up with as baller an argument as "who is the ESRB to stand up to the word of god?"
hate to be devils advocate, but i feel like people who experience gun violence are a (entirely too large) minority in america. i don't think we've hit 50%
What a legendary line.
Wait you mean 50+ years of glorified war and violence might have changed our views on violence? Say it aint so!
War and violence has always been glorified for centuries, the big difference between now and then is the fact that violence is seen as completely and pointlessly evil whereas it used to be viewed as a necessary evil.
It wasn't until WW1 that we began to start thinking that glorifying violence was a bad thing. This was one of the major sources of strain between the troops and the officers. The officers still believed in the old way that war was glorious and the only way to become a man while the soldiers realized that there was no glory left in war. An individual soldier could no longer stand out and dominate the battlefield.
@@Viperzka It wasn't until WW1 that people other than the war-makers really got a chance to record their opinions on the subject, I feel we take a lot of the war fever of the past for granted when we know history was written by the victor to make them look good as often as not.
@@Viperzka ***started to realize glorifying violence was a bad thing
@Meme Preacher how old are you boy?
"If the brain is the self, what's left of a boy shot twice in the head?"
What the fuck. What the fuck this line hit me so hard. I'm still reeling what the fuck
Maybe you’re not thinking hard enough, then. You still have a brain. Use it.
@@zorklinki3131 A person who was barely a man was shot in the head. Kid probably had dreams like you do, has family like you do. Imagine the person you love most being shot in the head twice, most likely murdered based on race alone. Lives matter, they're not numbers. Contemplate that if you can, you just told someone that the massacre of this life isn't that deep.
@@themonocle7416 relax bro, it ain’t that deep
@Zorklinki They never said it was deep. Rather, their comment implied it was impactful. Two different things.
@Zorklinki try to understand basic human empathy challenge (99% of youtube commenters fail!)
Using faith to convince your parents to get you an M rated game is perhaps the most chaotic good thing I’ve heard of, and I’m here for it.
it's literally the opposite. he upheld and enforced rules to make his argument (lawful), and the consequences of owning and playing the game resulted in him having nightmares (evil). "chaotic good" is letting no laws stop you from helping other people; "lawful evil" is rules-lawyering at the expense of human wellbeing.
"Ain't that a kick in the head"
How dare you, commit such a heinous pun-crime.
The only way we can save it is by assuming he means another type of head
@@Jack_Woods
*HMMMMMMM*
This must seem like a 24 karat run of bad luck. But the truth is, the game was rigged from the start.
@@alexbradshaw5466 what in the goddamn
I can think of two games that don't encourage/actively discourage killing, yet have it as an option should the player wish.
Metal Gear Solid V - Doesn't actively discourage kills, but has a "hidden" point system that visually depicts the negativity associated with. Additionally, bonus points if you don't kill and an even bigger bonus if you don't fire a shot.
Death Stranding meanwhile actually straight up tells you to not kill, and makes killing extremely inconvenient. I played through the game in sixty hours and only killed one human enemy out of curiosity.
Both games were directed by Hideo Kojima. Make of it what you will.
Hideo Kojima is very anti war
well, to be fair, MGSV did encourage headshots either way, since it immediately pacified enemies if you shot your tranq pistol towards their head.
Damn I need Death Stranding.
Also Dishonored
This makes me interested in Death Stranding. It's too bad I'm poor and can't afford a computer or console capable of running it at the moment. I've just always been interested in games in which it's possible to complete the game by non-lethal means, especially if not killing enemies is actively encouraged.
So the question isn't "do video games cause violence?"
But that "How violence influence video games?"
Video games is art and art is a reflection of ourselves. Violent video games are not the source but a mirror to our obsession with violence and gun culture.
the complete one for anyone who got lost would be "how does artistic depictions of guns in mainstream media affect culture?"
a bit of both really. "how does our understanding of violence affect video games" and "how do video games affect our understanding of violence"
@@madlad8035 What do you have against Black Lives Matter and Anti-Fascist?
@@madlad8035 found the excessively violent, white-supremacist, fascist, bootlicker
@@acekabogen your obsessed aren’t you. Are the white supremacists in the room right now? Please go back to twitter or go outside, it’s sad seeing someone so deluded by identity politics and race baiting
“Rosemary isn’t the first Kennedy people think of when traumatic brain injuries come up”
…That’s probably one of the most morbid quotes I’ve heard in the past year.
I do love the use of SUPERHOT, a game where a headshot doesn't really matter.
@@desko2041 is there any way to avoid that? I spend 15 minutes trying to figure out an alternative path but couldn't find one
@@desko2041 bummer but oh well.
The ending felt really forced to me
And yet they have a head explosion animation to make them satisfying anyway. Besides, you can't get much more "gamifictation of violence" than turning a shootout into a puzzle.
na with the pisol if you shoot the arms they still survive for a little
Games like that are useless.
The director, François Truffaut, had this whole maxim about how it's impossible to successfully make an anti-war film because war, in itself, is viscerally exciting, rife with the kind of visuals that just look amazing on the silver screen. He might be right. Think of Apocalypse Now! where Coppola was trying to depict the Vietnam War as the monstrous crime it was, yet most peoples' reactions to the scene where US planes bomb and gun down Vietnamese citizens to the tune of "Ride of the Valkyries" by Richard Wagner, is like "F Yeah!"
In fairness, it really is a good musical choice. Wagner is perfect for getting someone fired up, ready to blow a country to smithereens. You hear his music and immediately you're like, "F Yeah! Let's invade Poland!"
@Pferd Schild The implication was the director's intention, nor is it an unknown phenomena. tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MusicToInvadePolandTo
Uh... Vietnam WAN’T a monsterous crime. It was a war to stop Communism from taking South East Asia. Did you not look up what Republican Spain, People’s Republic of China, The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Cuba, Vietnam (after we cowardly betrayed the South Vietnamese by withdrawing aid and troops and, surprise surprise, the NVA completely violated the Paris Peace Accords), and so on did to their own people and to those they conquered? I’m sorry but I’m not feeling any sympathy for supporters of such a monsterous ideology.
@@duncanharrell5009 are you saying that the means weren't monstrous?
Destroying crops with chemical weapons in order to starve the north?
No?
Napalm bombing cities?p
@@truedarklander Are you gonna address what I said? Do that and I’ll answer your questions.
@@duncanharrell5009 The Vietnam war was filled with violations of the Geneva accords on either side and it was a war of self determination with Maoist nationalists on one side and the French puppet of South Vietnam on the other.
"If the brain is the self, what's left of a boy shot twice in the head?" this whole video was pretty emotional at times but this made me burst out sobbing
@@danon3955 the fact that you replied to a year old comment about about how someone else felt makes you sound like the child.
Grow up
@@danon3955 an innocent kid getting shot in the head twice is a perfectly reasonable thing to cry about. Grow up.
@@danon3955 isn’t this ironic, considering how immature your reply is. Take your own advice kid
@@danon3955 maybe if one day you manage to have a kid with whatever poor woman unfortunately falls for you enough to allow that, and should you have a single fiber of humanity in yourself to feel for this child, love it, care for it since you're incapable of empathy in concept, maybe then, you'll be sad when you hear about children dying.
@@danon3955 You don't know what they've been through, snowflake. If an expression of simple human emotion triggers you that much, maybe you need to grow a pair.
Cuck.
Headshots seem like a clinical and professional way to kill somebody at least in the sense that the person who gets killed dies relatively quickly and painlessly. Poison, electrocution and being shot elsewhere in the body might not look as gory and might still allow for open casket funerals but while that's nice for your relatives burying you, it takes more time and pain to die those ways.
It's not about pain, it's about humanity.
Heinrich Himmler was disgusted at the method of fire squads to execute Jews and Slavs in Eastern Europe and at the Wannsee Conference decided a cleaner method to kill was the gas chamber.
A headshot destroys the individual, blows pieces of their innards out into the world and instantly eradicates anything human about them and leaves a destroyed stub on a lifeless corpse. A person shot in the body can at least bleed out, give their last words, look you in the eyes and is still a person. Someone shot in the head has been literally dehumanized in an instant.
@@LiterallyWho1917 humanity is a subjective term. You'd rather die a slow painful death than your funeral be a closed casket? Shitty opinion.
@@meowcow21 When you reduce killing someone to a mere matter of efficiency you've diminished the significance of the act. Killing someone quick and painless makes you see killing in general as not AS BAD a thing. Hence WHY Himmler chose the more """humane"""" method to carry out the Holocaust because it made killing women and children easier for those doing so.
@@LiterallyWho1917 it's not about efficiency. It's about suffering. If I'm going to die, I'd rather not suffer. You're attacking a strawman.
@@meowcow21 the point is they usually don't HAVE to die
"It's like his gun is a stapler" 10/10 dad quote ever XD
The thing that's completely missing from media is escalation of violence. Usually when there's conflict, people start with threats, then throwing punches, then threatening with weapons, then the use of weapons, then finally intent to kill. Opening with a headshot is barbaric.
I think Undertale is a great example of a video game modeling escalation. Some enemies are reasonable, some will surrender if you beat them, and some are suicidal. Context matters.
that's ENTIRELY subjective and different from a vast amount of scenarios, especially if you want to think about police interactions. I don't particularly recommend doing it since it's rather violent and gets me down in the dumps and messes with my head to watch so much violence, but channels like Police Activity and other active archives of police bodycam footage show that things can go 1-100 in less than a second especially with violent criminals, so much so you don't get a chance to gradually escalate. An officer can be getting handed license and registration one half second and the next half second a loaded sawn off shotgun is in their face. A video game doesn't represent real life at all, no matter how much thought or complexity or careful design you put into it, simulations at least now are no where near capable of projecting real life. If they were humans likely wouldn't exist anymore.
@@luxj.9451 Really? So if someone acts your ego, you're willing to end their life? To make a child parentless, to make someone else homeless, to ruin a family?
And you're okay with this?... Really really??
Maybe, instead of just being trigger happy, you should use that experience with violence that you say you have (like me btw), to properly assess the situation and deem if a response in violence is the answer.
Maybe, juuuuuust maybe, you could use your brain instead of aiming for someone else's.
@Lurker M Either engage in the conversation or like go do something else you enjoy doing instead of being angry lol. Please stay healthy and love yourself.
@@demetrifrost2546 He's very clearly defining an instance where someone violently attacks him. No one said anything about hurting people's feelings. There's a very clear distinction between the two things. And honestly society would be way better if everyone held up this practice and knew the difference. There should be absolutely no vagueness in an instance where someone is violently attacked and defends themselves rightfully, no matter their political beliefs no matter their race gender, etc. And it is always never okay for someone to attack someone for hurting feelings because that violates both self defense and free speech.
There actually is a "method" for escalation of violence. It is taught for soldiers (national guard), detailing the concept of using "minimum necessary force". Basically, you would use common sense, and go through a few levels of escalation. You try Lv1 first, (being present in uniform) and then Lv2, (clear commands) Lv3... etc. I learned that Lv 6 is deadly force, such a firearms. Even then, you must aim for the chest, not the head. The many police agencies in my area were offered this training, and they declined, claiming it was too "touchy feely."
The fact that cops DON'T want to undergo training do things as peacefully as possible really makes me think... What a bunch of fucking losers. I cut meat for a living and my fingers don't like it. But I could get a new job if I wanted.
But I seen how cops work. They don't work, not really. So why would they ever get a real job? They get to play with guns and feel like the Big Guy On The Block, and get paid for it, with healthcare and a retirement plan. fuck
The routine of a double tap to the chest and one to the head is called the failure drill or Mozambique Drill. It was based off of a real situation that occurred in Mozambique. A man rounded a corner, encountered an enemy, and shot him twice in the chest. Two shots to the chest is usually more than enough (especially with modern hollow point ammunition), but in this instance the man did not die, so he followed it up with a shot to the head (which actually hit the neck and severed the spinal cord.)
Armies don’t use hollow points. That’s the reason for headshots being needed at close range.
@@michaelemison7900 even with hollow points, handguns still struggle to cause instant incapacitation on a target.
It's why police shoot until they can confirm that they have neutralized the target
@@handcraftedgetget2918 against unarmed targets, usually
@@handcraftedgetget2918 its very odd to see a comment using the language "Neutralized the target" to describe the act of killing another person on this of all videos.
Kind of on the nose tbh
It’s weird because I’ve always considered using headshots in games as more humane. Like one second you’re there, the next you’re gone. When you shoot someone in the chest, they have to suffer for a bit all the while knowing they’re going to die. Fear, shock, sadness. All of that. A headshot is quick and you don’t even know you’re dead. But maybe I’m just a weirdo.
Not a weirdo, a sensible person.
Courier 6 would disagree with their effectiveness.
There is no humane way to kill someone.
@@theeccentric7263 in popular beliefs, it's more humane than letting a subject that will be killed, to suffer more than just the death. whatever that humane means, it means something significant to the public since slaughterhouses get protested if they don't provide quick and painless death to animals. and since anyone that intended to shoot to kill will kill, the same principle can be applied.
From what I've heard (and I am by no means any sort of expert on this) police and military are trained to aim for the chest because of how bloody difficult it is to hit a headshot in real life. A bullet in the chest is almost as lethal AND an almost guaranteed hit for them trained killers.
Games are different. In games enemies may shrug off five pistol shots to the chest and still move at full speed and shoot at you with barely any accuracy penalties. Games are made to feel competitive, not just violent. Violence, if I may say, is more of an afterthought, a psychological load to keep the players engaged in that competitive activity
firing to the chest also prevents overpenetration/ricochets potentially striking a bystander
@@thatlittledude7731 I don't want to get gruesome here, but, brains are mostly water, while lungs are mostly air...
Certain other things, such as expanding bullets, are however quite effective at preventing overpenetration (reason why they use these in planes).
Core shots reduce collateral damage and have full stopping power. But bullets aren't magic pills and sometimes multiple body shots do little to show an assailant down. There was a robbery incident where the victims defended their business before calling emergency services. The suspect brought himself to the hospital with five gunshot wounds before police managed to respond to the crime scene.
The actual training is two to the chest, and one to the head. His comment on snipers is also a bit facetious because, even though the US might train for snipers to make body shots, that doesnt mean they always do, or that other militaries do. There is plenty of footage of sniper headshots out there. Core shots generally dont kill as fast as you would think, especially given an angle or a caliber. The human body is quite good at not dying.
@@thatlittledude7731 Well, it can, but bullets can and often do go straight through people's torso. It's just less of a chance of a missed shot
watching this from a European country deeply experienced by WWII is such a trip... the imagery of mass executions by shooting people in the head, often on the edge of a grave that the victims usually dug up themselves so that they would fall down to it immedietaly afterwards is so deeply ingrained in our cultural lexicon and so obvious to me... Katyń massacre is the most prominent example of this that comes to mind
hearing you approach this topic from such a different point is a very weird experience
Have to say, the Reloaded clip with the "alternate shot" where JFK dies in his wife's arms is just as horrifying if not more so than the real thing.
Very interesting video about a topic I hadn’t really ever thought of before. I don’t think video games are a direct cause of violence, that’s a ridiculous idea, but we should absolutely question why rewarding lethality and the most efficient way to murder is so prevalent in a lot of the entertainment we consume. Definitely something to think about. Great video, as always
I think it's less our video games shaping us, and more us shaping our video games. They're a warning light, culturally, like media in general.
i actually thought about this a lot, because in rdr2 for example you can shoot someone center mass and they'll probably start a very large bleed but they'll still shoot at you, they are still "dead" it's just not immediate, i personally aim center mass a lot unless it's close range because the fact that someone else can shoot back and still kill me even though they are still technically dead themselves is scary at times so headshots are high risk and high reward situations
Video games and media reflect and repurpose our evolving mentality resulting from social change and history. Video games are a monument to our achieved violence, not the catalyst
I must mention a technicality that is fundimental to the final argument:
Headshots are applicable in firearms training to dispatch a threat, and are taught to be executed when the head is the only thing visible, and when body shots _fail._
This is very critical as the practice was developed in response to years of instances where shots to “vital” areas of the body might insure eventual death, but fail to incapacitate the target; fail to stop the _immediate_ threat. Most famous is the _Mozambique Drill,_ (developed by Mike Roussaeo and Jeff Cooper, after Roussaeo failed to kill a guerrilla with a double-tap, then followed through with an attempted headshot; successfully severing the spinal cord). This technique became common doctrine in training ever since. The same technique employed in movies like _Collateral_ and _John Wick_ where targets are engaged with speed with the added insurance of the headshot.
In my personal experience, my first exposure to the headshot in the realm of clinical, practiced, and real-world applications was in defensive training. We were trained young and old to practice the headshot (a very difficult type of shot) for two primary reasons:
1.) Hostage or obsured target
2.) Failure to stop the threat after two shots to the thorasic cavity (vitals). due to body armor, drugs, missed vitals, and even adreniline.
There’s a 2008 shootout where a cop and trained SWAT instructor engaged his attacker with multiple shots to the chest. of the 14 hits, 6 were fatal wounds but the threat still retrieved a second firearm and searched for the cop who was prone by his car. When the attacker knelt to look under the car. A headshot from 3 shots finally ended the threat.
another good example is the 1986 Miami-Dade shootout, one of the suspects, Micheal Platt, was shot 12 times throughout the gunfight, once in the lung, and still managed to kill two FBI agents and seriously wound four others.
if you respect your enemy, then you should expect them to overcome all the pain to get back up and shoot you again. so be like briitsh SAS, put 5 more rounds into the downed bad guy so he wont get up and shoot your team in the back.
kinda reminds me of a quote "we are imperfect men been expected to excute a mission perfectly"
and quote from the book "inside delta force"
its better to makes an enemy a martyr, then to have his friends hijacking another airplane trying to get him out of the prison.
"Two shots to the thorasic cavity" and if that fails use a headshot. Have you ever been to Front Sight before?
Because that's the same advice I remember hearing there.
@@anti-consumertechnologies4857 That's the defensive training I was referring to yes.
Just found Your Channel and Clicking through every Episode like its netflix. Keep up the Good Work and greetings from germany
Same
Same!
Came here to say exactly this ^
Same, even that im from germany too ^^
@@faultboy same
I was 14 when my parents gave my Mortak Kombat II for the SNES; they were fully aware this was a 17+ game, but they trusted the education they gave me, I guess, and so far, 26 years later, I have been able to held back the urge to crush my enemies' skulls.
"Oh, but you don't have enemies".
Anyway, great video (as always).
Grew up on mortal kombat and sometimes it's very hard not to do a fatality on people
The Saigon headshot is still being misunderstood to this day.
Lem's story itself is always strangely separated from the "moral" of the story in which it became framed as a microcosm of America's involvement in Indochina. Even if Loan committed a crime there, Lem's innocence is hard to justify when they found what he did to a family, decapitating an ARVN officer shooting the kids, stabbing an 86 year old grandmother and the wife. one kid survived and had to tend to his dying mother as she bled to death. This was all because Lem wanted the ARVN officer to defect, which he did not. Even if Lem was VC, this seems psychopathic. Even the photographer of the photograph regretted it being an award winning photo of the war, when he wished more of his other photos showing the plight of the Vietnamese were shown. But you're right, it was an important image of shaping the pop cultural conscious of violence through the headshot. The problem people forget though is pictures have a thousand words, and that's just that, a bunch of words but not always the whole story.
This is an underrated comment. Thanks for sharing this, I would like to research it more.
could there also be the argument that: "although we all agree the scum should've been executed, it is unAmerican of us to strip someone's right to trial in another country"? I think even the most justified headshot-execution scares us more than the idea of a botched trial leading to one.
@@raziphaz2219 this is a matter of the south Vietnamese govt not the US, so whether it is unamerican or not is a different matter. Loan was a policeman and not a soldier and Lem a guerrilla disguised a a civilian. Even in south Vietnamese law there would have been a trial, but this was during the Tet offensive and so much shit was going on and the literal heat that day got to Loan. Future testimonies of Loan said he regretted it but he may have saved the life of a future US Navy officer who was one of the boat children that emigrated to America.
@@Kabutoes thanks for the share, so fascinating
If he committed a war crime? A summary execution is a war crime in case you don't know.
Keanu shooting people twice in the chest and once in the head (extremely common in the films) is probably an intentional reference to actual drills and professional techniques. It's true that professional soldiers and marksmen do not aim for the head. However those people also do not use pistols or personal defence weapons, generally. FPS games also hold basically no relation to real life, the only ones that do (simulators) also don't encourage headshots really.
A full auto burst of medium caliber is gonna destroy your chest anyway in close quarters, considering bullets have much more energy at short range due to air resistance, while at long range a downed soldier is either an easy target for other shots or can't fight back anyway and also has to be carryed away by the enemy team.
You go for headshots only when it's the only part of the body visible, like an mg user. Simulators also can't simulate the pain and stress you get after being shot, you ain't gonna stand still and shoot back after getting hit irl unless it's the only thing you can do or you're under a lot of drugs.
swat style team and counter terrorism units are trained to shoot twice in the body once in the head when doing close quarters combat raids. this is especially true in situations like raiding a captured ship or raiding a landed airplane with terrorists on board
rage 2 is actually interesting in that body armor works, so head shots sometimes are not efficient, you miss a lot if the target is aware because they shake, when you hit it only takes the helmet off, and now the target is aware, and some enemies have metal heads, they are called immortals, and are imune to head shots, but you can dismember the limbs and achieve better results, even if the first shot doesn't incapacitate they are knocked down so you can finish them, but when the enemy is unaware AND unprotected a head shot is still effective
@@WaveOfDestiny Off the top of my head, the main FPS sims i can think of are Red Orchestra, Squad, Arma, aaand a couple of others I don't remember the name of. In all of these games, headshots are basically considered irrelevant as 2-3 submachine gun rounds or a single rifle round to center mass will incapacitate a player.
Getting shot in the torso in real life doesn't nessecarily kill you, but for most people it removes that person from the fight. You can practically have a hand blown off and still move around, but severe organ damage tends to knock anyone out.
The two to the chest one to the head is called the Mozambique because in Mozambique guys used to take drugs that made them essentially unstoppable because they couldn't feel pain so cops had to shoot them in the head.
Playing rising storm 2 vietnam and seeing my friends head turn to red mist is a lot more terrifying than seeing an NPC taking a bullet to the brain.
Yea I was once playing that with a friend we were america we went into this shack to shoot and after a while I look to my left and see him get fucking obliterated by some bullet fired from an enemy in the next town over
i haven't played rising storm but i like to snipe a lot in insurgency sandstorm and watching buddies getting revenge sniped is always horrifying to me because typically their head explodes before you hear the shot, so all it is is just a crack of the bullet and a lot of red mist followed by screaming in my ear from my friend getting jumpscared by the bullet
Side note, but I still can't believe no one thought of taking Receiver's mechanic into an horror game. The scramble to get the gun working would add to the panic of any regular ol' horror. Frictional never gives you a way to defend yourself, but what if the way to defend yourself was also a way to play right into the monster's hands?
The Long Drive did, and it's not even a horror game
@@JeanMarceaux The newest Amnesia did something similar too. Very simplified compared to Receiver, but still makes the gun feel clunky rather than an all powerful tool
Stay out of the house did something similar
At that point the cop didn't just kill Mike Brown, he made it so that even at his viewing his death would be an intimidation tactic. His family choosing to either let the world see his destroyed self of tell the story as to why it is a closed casket funeral
what does that even mean?
@@Smity1234 How do you mot understand? He is referring to a case in which a cop shot a petsonnnamed Mike Brown. I know nothing about the case but its pretty obvious what is meant. He is saying that by shooting MB in the head, this was an intimidation tactic on the part of the shooter, because of how the results effect anyone who aees them. To intimidate the larger community, or at least family.
It meant the victims family would either have to show the gore or explain why they have a closed casket funeral. ie forcing them to either expose the gore which would intimidate the community ie 'this is what happens if you fuck with this cop' this intimidating them, or the family hides the result of that shooters crime in way that feels almost complicit, which is intimidating the victims family.
Not really sure how you don't understand what that means.
We live under such a sad system
See i think people like you just read way too far into shit, many cops shoot people who are still falling to the ground, the mix of adrenaline and the training of making sure the threat is not a threat to not just you but everyone else around you has a hell of an effect on cops who are just like me and you. They don't have the training of a marine going out to protect the streets of Detroit, even though with how bad Detroit is they should be, but still they're not robots they're just like you and me and they are capable of succumbing to that adrenaline rush and making mistakes. Also headshots aren't always deliberate at all, rarely they are in fact, expecally as i stated earlier, when a person is flailing around and falling to the ground. Not everything is a deliberate at, are there? Sure, but the amount of them that are are insanely low nowadays, 90 percent of the stories of "unarmed" black men people shot by police turn out later to be false and the "unarmed" black man is usually shooting at the cops or trying to kill the cops in some way.
Also, with the rise of body armor militaries HAVE started practicing for headshots, though only in close quarters.
It's called a failure-to-stop drill in the USAF, essentially you put two rounds into center mass and one in the head. It makes sure a threat is entirely eliminated in a quick-reaction, close-combat scenario.
@Joe Ç what did the Swede do to deserve it?
@Joe Ç The origin story for the Mozambique Drill is pretty interesting in itself. It was popularized by Colonel Jeff Cooper, a firearms instructor and writer who really pushed the ideas that would create the modern techniques for defensive handgun shooting (such as using two hands and front sight focus).
Cooper knew a man who if i recall correctly was a mercenary. This man found himself in a really bad sititation at an airport in Mozambique where he was armed with only his Browning Hi Power pistol and at close range found himself facing an enemy combatant with an AK type rifle in hand. He was able to get two center massed shots off with his 9mm Browning but seeing the enemy wasnt quite incapacitated (while holding an assault rifle) he shot him in the head. Working this all out on the fly, which is remarkably quick thinking if true.
Cooper took note of the incident and created a practice drill that he began teaching his students, calling it the Mozambique Drill. There are arguments over the semantics and whether Mozambique vs Failure to Stop includes a pause between the 2nd and 3rd shot for assessment or not but i digress. In any case it seems it was "invented" on the fly as a matter of life or death, which is fascinating in a morbid way if true.
@Christian Morgan Theres lots of arguments you can make for or against it, it's been controversial for as long as its existed.
@Christian Morgan Cuz you can still miss the head, better to get two on target with a better chance. Better two almost confirmed hits than one miss.
@Christian Morgan Adreneline dumps, it's practised so you do it on reflex during stressful situations. The more you think the more you will mess up, and your brain will try to find the shortcut to make things easier. I hit send before completeing, my bad.
The last few minutes hit different now,with the riots and protests
Same
It took me a while to realize this was uploaded a year ago. I hope things change this time
@@tetov1620 what do you mean?
Hear from the future. Things haven't got any better.
lmao things have been the same for years. it's nothing fucking new. it's like ppl have just realized cops were violent when ppl have been screaming about it since the sixties
The brown soldier’s death animation from Wolfenstein 3D (literally the first dude shot in a first person shooter) was a headshot.
Back when we played the good old DayZ mod super actively, I was the designated marksman, always with a sniper rifle. In that game, I never went for headshots. Always torso, safest shot, almost always a direct kill. Heashots were risky, and just for bragging rights. A missed shot could potentially mean a dead squad mate who would not be able to play with us for 30-40 minutes while he respawned and ran back up north.
I wonder if what's happening is not a fetishization of violence but a fetishization of the trappings of the visceral exercise of power.
Like, I clicked away from this video and ran smack into an ad for tactical gear, so I came back.
I don't need tactical gear. It looks cool, though, and it makes me feel like I'd be stronger for having it. And that feeling of strength does an interesting thing when taken alongside a view of the world as hostile and confining. In that context, strength becomes agency. The stronger you are, the more *you* can choose how your life goes.
Buying a gun brings some arguable physical security. But buying a laser sight, foregrip, etc, gives a feeling of increased agency, of the power to enact your will, and this increases the *feeling* of security.
I think the problem is, people get high on that feeling of agency and they don't come back. Once someone starts seeing themself as the ultimate arbiter of what is wrong and right in a given context, pulling a trigger becomes trivial, because in the shooter's head, every decision they're making is correct.
Dont know man, to me military stuff has more of a sublime kind of appeal.
I mean, sure, thunderstorms and hurricanes are both extremely beautiful and dangerous but are still part of my world, its nature, I am nature too.
But a fighter jet for examples feels like so much more, its a giant metal angel zooming around over your head at supersonic speed, a conglomerate and heritage of centuries of technological evolution, but at the same time perfectly capable and actually designed to level me along with half of my neighbourhood.
I guess if I was in the airforce it would start to feel like second nature too, just another piece of equipment, but as a civilian who's never been closer to a gun than he has to an officer its extremely fascinating.
Being extremely into model making surely doesn't help either.
I think war and violence are just fascinating for those who have the luck not to experience it, its navy seals and snipers now, it was cowboys and martial artists some decades ago, and before it was warships, flintlock pistols, plated armor, greatswords, steel blades and so on.
It's inherently fascinating as long as you keep away from either the giving or the receiving end of a bullet.
I mean, I feel the same way, but that's sort of the thing I'm wondering about. Watching a jet-fighter or an airstrike gives a kind of contact-high on that feeling of agency and power, and I think it's easy to wax poetic about military hardware for that same reason.
For what it's worth, in the above comment I'm not talking about "fetishization" as a sex thing. I mean it sort of more in the original sense. In our society, military power is a god, and lots of us perform rituals or carry tokens of its worship.
And I'm not strictly convinced this is a good thing.
Granted, I don't think it's all bad either. I find gunsmithing and fighter jets and the study of warfare to be interesting because I'm a geek and I like digging into the technicality of things. But I think we as a society might've gotten sort of a little too high on our go-to way of defining will and freedom and power.
Which is not to say we need to about-face, focus on different entertainment, and radically revise our society. I'm not sure we can. Given how acclimated we are to saturating our entertainment in the trappings of military power, it would feel weird and boring not to have any of it, and entertainment that is weird and boring gets ditched immediately. But I think there is some value in second-guessing how good it feels to see a successful airstrike strike, or a well-modded firearm, or a headshot, and I'm grateful there are games that challenge that good feeling by studying and deconstructing it.
@@ghostbearlabs sure, all I am saying is that there is more than one way to enjoy military stuff and besides that war and violence are a part of who we are as humans, and we can't just leave it behind or deny the role it has in our existence. the computer you are reading this on wasn't born as an instrument of peace, and all of the technology that surrounds you wasn't either.
I am all for preventing violence in real life, but I think it would be wrong as a specie to try eliminating our violent nature, specially when we are talking of fictional violence.
that is not to say we should mindlessy consume it, like you said it's nice to look back on those themes and reflect on what they mean to us. but I dont think that it is wrong for us to have fun by blowing up fictional nazis, firing cool rifles in a range or spending ours building scale reproductions of our time's most efficient angels of death, looking at their romanticized glorious beauty being aware of their cold, sinister purpose.
now of course this comes with a sense of empowerment, but at least to me it feels like affirmation of humanity, mostly as our potential as humanity, to either do great or horrible thing with the power these tools give us.
also, completely off topic but I am sorry for not being as eloquent as you, I am no english speaker and I never was good with words to begin with
@@npc6817 Whoah, anyone who said you're not an English speaker is wrong. And you're definitely eloquent. Like, if you were ever worried about either of those things, don't be.
I agree that it would be weird to eliminate stories of violence from our entertainment. I don't think we should do that. By the same token, I don't want to knock going to a gun range, making models, wargaming, etc. Honestly, I like those things, and I don't want to make an argument that takes away anyone's sense of fun from those things.
I *do* think that our nature might be a lot less violent than people like to believe it is, but I don't have a good way of proving that.
Specifically re: the computer, I dunno if I'd say it wasn't born as an instrument of peace. I think it's more accurate to say that computer advances come out of whatever part of society the money's in. Babbage's work was funded by the treasury and intended for, I think, financial and astronomy applications. Turing, on the other hand, was active during WWII, and as such the military was where the funding money was. Since WWII (at least in America), the military has remained a massive well of money that can be used to fund anything that has potential defense applications. But if that same budget was allocated to health, or interstellar exploration, or launching deer into the sun, I think that's where the computing advances would be.
ghostbearlabs this applies to literally every type of escapism in our society, from the makeup industry to intelectual diatribes
Perhaps they are even more common in diatribes actually, for example i often get the impression that videos like these serve to justify already existing beliefs instead of seriously analizing anything, by which metric, for example, can we say that violence in our current society is glorified?
Glorified in comparison to what?
Epic myths of heroic figures slaying monsters?
Is it the society that glorifies the violence or is it just how humans always have done it?
Judging by history, it seems that either this is more or less how we always understood violence, or more likely that victory bias is at play here, and tribes that dont have this culture perish where as tribes that do, don't
What do you think of this?
I am surprosed there is no mention of zombie movies in this. In the Night of the Living Dead, a headshot was literally the only way to dispatch a zombie. This seems extremely relevent to the period covered by Quinlain. The fact that these movies were intended to be shocking and graphic must say a lot about the sensibilities at that time.
The most significant aspect of headshots must surely be that it necessitates looking at the victim's face. Ordinary (non-psychopaths) find it much more difficult and traumatising to kill another human being when they can see their face. This makes the cop killings much more chilling as it implies that they have been trained to behave this way. That behaviour is a long way from normal.
It's almost like a lot of our soldiers, police force, and business class are sociopaths and psychopaths ;)
@@Yet.Another.Rapper.KiG.V2 what a charmingly simple way to put it.
This is a great point, because how are older mythological beings killed? A werewolf is shot in the heart with a silver bullet, and a vampire staked through the heart.
As much as I get the op's point, and it is an excellent observation, I feel like the addition of "this implies they were trained to behave this way" is unneeded. The truth of the matter is that shooting someone in the head is not only not taught to be normal but its the result of mental instability. An incident that I forget the date of involved a mentally ill gamer who started committing crimes then shooting at cops. The man after his apprehension stated that life is just gta. The man had a legitimate and utter belief that gta was reality. Things like headshots happen in real life when someone isnt thinking rationally or doesnt have any experience or training. If almost all media portrays headshots as "instant death" then if your panicked, mentally unstable, or just not thinking and your intent is killing your opponent why NOT go for the head? Whats to lose? "Its not brutal they die instantly". Thats the logic that can occur. Alot of cop killings CAN result in bias but not all do. If somone is being violent and they have an unknown likelihood of having a gun or other weapon do you have time to check yourself if your being "racist" or not. My personal answer is no, the most you have time for, and only with a controlled and calm mind, is "can he hurt me?, can he hurt others?, can he hurt himself?, how can I end the situation the safest?" Unfortunately the latter answer is sometimes lethal force. I by no means am refuting that the tragedy referenced in the video was justified nor am I saying that cops can sometimes do dumb, brutal, sadistic, or just monstrous things. Their human too, we ALL ARE. We all can do terrible things. I'm calling attention to the unfortunate "fatalities" of the recent rights movements. In the public light now alot of people veiw cops as having malice in their actions. Officers simply caught in a terrible situation are now displayed as similar or the same to those with malice and bias for doing something lethal to escape a one way out situation. Even when involved scientific evidence proving bias influencing split second decisions the point still rings true. If YOU were caught in a situation where killing someone was the ONLY way out, and you had the choice between killing somone white or black who would you choose. Deep down it is difficult to overcome a bias towards our own race, their like us, their familiar, the bias can in fact be overcome but when put in that split second situation a person of the same race can seem almost similar to family in a watered down primitive sort of way. Not all officers killing blacks have malintent but some DO. Therefore all are assumed to be the same, after all how can you know?
I cannot express enough also how nice it is to see on these videos civilized and intelligent debate instead of a bunch of one party mass flaming a video and getting "triggered" because it dared go against the grain. (A side note abot the word triggered, I believe it should be used genuinelyand truthfully those who have unpleasant memories or experiences brought to mind in an unbearable kind of way, not for a middle aged woman being so drastically appalled that a speaker or media or anything DARE speak about things in history that were graphic. Also I believe that trigger warnings should be implemented in some sense but their also kind of self implemented)
Off topic but jeez I hate autocorrect, DTT I? What the heck is that? In the middle of a sentence? Ok then...
Holy fuck, I haven’t heard “BOOOOM HEADSHOT!!!” In YEARS
Fun fact: my grandpa is one of the reasons the Saigon execution photo was taken! a general was being flown in and the officers in Saigon wanted to make sure it seemed that they were being productive, so they made sure to perform the execution as the general drove past (my grandpa was the one driving the general around)
"Hey how do we look productive for the general?" "Oh I know just fuckin execute some surrendered guy!"
Things that did not happen
REAL
“1911”
Shows glock
@@Mortablunt one question assumes guilt from the officer while the other question assumes the state is correct in killing its own citizens and then look for offending behavior to justify it after the fact.
@@ChucksSEADnDEAD looks like your reply slipped.
@@SianaGearz ffs how the hell does that even happen? Thanks.
@@ChucksSEADnDEAD I don't know but i don't believe it's your fault, i've seen replies just land in the wrong thread. Just some flimsy RUclips tech.
@@SianaGearz I might have had multiple tabs open and wrote a reply on the wrong one, but I've seen YT bugs too so I don't know.
This is so insanely unique, where have you been all my life sexy video essay man
You think another parrot screeching about guns causing violence (no matter how roundabout the implication is, instead of being direct), while racebaiting at the same time, is somehow "original"? Dude...
@@UCvow2TUIH0d2Ax2vik9ILzg Guns were literally made to be violent... What are you talking about? There's no such thing as racebaiting and it doesn't apply here because cops aren't a race.
@@IaMSpeaks This is fucking race baiting. Last five minutes are all about how "we" (assuming white) have been working to dehumanise black people.
Personally I don't mind.
@@UCvow2TUIH0d2Ax2vik9ILzg "Guns cause violence" =/= "The depiction of guns and lethal force in media could in some cases impact how we view violence"
@@IaMSpeaks Let's be honest, it was enough to read "there's no such thing as racebaiting" in your comment to dismiss you completely.
I think you forgot one other key factors as to why video games (and really a lot of media) will focus on headshots: the widespread manufacture and adoption of Kevlar. Now, media has portrayed soft body armor with about the same level of realism and accuracy as they do actual guns, but the fact remains that since about the late 90s and early 2000s, when you watch an action movie and a character is shot in the chest, half of the time there's a gotcha of "they didn't die because they were wearing a bulletproof vest under that suit!" It's not farfetched to think video games would be influenced similarly.
I think it's also important to note that headshots weren't always a trope in video games. After all, Doom, Duke Nukem, Quake? To my knowledge, almost none of the earliest FPSes had headshot mechanics. The earliest you could name is TF Classic, and you've probably done way more research than I have.
I think it’s definitely a better question to ask what influence video games have on our perception of violence than whether or not they directly cause it, I think in particular the increasing number of games framing themselves within ‘realism’ will always have consequences on how we perceive real violence
You know a weird example? Quake Champions.
As an arena shooter that tries to be somewhat true to its roots, there's no such thing as a critical hit. Shoot the tip of someone's toe or right between their eyes and it does the same amount of damage. BUT, kill someone with a headshot from an appropriate weapon and you're rewarded with a badge and the narrator announcing "headshot".
There's even daily quests that might ask for a certain number of headshots, even though they do nothing and actually make it harder to score a kill.
It's still very jarring for me to see headshots in the game that taught me to aim low.
This is a really interesting example. Totally arbitrary celebration, just based on the idea that it does have meaning in other games.
Quakes main rival was unreal tornament who's dominatrix announcer said Headshot in a voice that can only be called orgasmic. Linking skillful shots with pleasure forever.
ruclips.net/video/6dWPPgHj8rM/видео.html
" there's no such thing as a critical hit." critical hits in other games = 1 shot kill or even less, quake had that to begin with making it double means nothing, games like cs/overwatch/apex are slow so hitting for headshots is easyer even tho you need more pinpoint accuracy, quake was very fast but instead no need for headshots allready hard enough to flick targets
@@JacobGeller No, it's based on the fact that it takes way more skill to hit a tiny circle than a large square. How the fuck do you miss that?
Now I'm not sure about original Quake 3 Arena, but if I recall correctly, the free web version/remaster(?) Quake Live had headshots available only with the Railgun (which is a sniper style weapon). Hitting shots with the Railgun is hard to do in such a fast paced environment and you're putting yourself at great risk during the weapon's long reload/recharge period (during which you can't switch to another one), so it makes sense to reward really good players who can consistently hit a single pixel on a screen of about 2 million, all while it's moving at 300mph.
If the above is true, then Quake Champions just evolved this or, if it's not, they implemented it afresh to keep up with the times. Either way, it takes more skill to hit the head than any other part of the body, especially at that speed.
"Headshots" are high risk, high reward. Center mass is ALWAYS the most taught and effective aiming point for firearms marksmanship training.
"Reward?" Is that the terminology you use to refer to murdering someone?
@@antipsychotic451 How else can you get people to kill? We all know that everything in the universe is driven by profit incentive after all...
@@antipsychotic451 No, "high risk, high reward" is just a set phrase. "Reward" is being used in the sense it's used in AI research, where "reward" is just "achieving the intended outcome", regardless of whether that outcome is good or bad.
@@antipsychotic451 lol ur so offended
@@antipsychotic451 i think the saying goes "it's impossible to hate someone more than you hate yourself". Which would explain your username and the complete over reaction to the term "reward" being used when talking about killing. Virtue signaling always does the opposite for the people who can see beyond fake morals.
Really good usage of the music from The Beginner's Guide. In fact, your narration in general already reminded me of that game already. Perfect!
There is one more situation where shooting someone in the head is preferable over going for a body shot, as discussed in the Anthony Horowitz book Snakehead: When the target is wearing body armour.
I mean truly, if your within 8 feet of someone you should always go for that headshot because chances are at that range you won't miss and it doesn't leave the target the chance for the bullet to not hit a vital spot in their chest and for them to shoot back or whatever they're trying to do. The head is all a vital spot and there's no chance for the bullet to not kill unless you are extraordinarily unlucky.
rewatching this in the context of the current protests and police behavior really makes you think about medias glorification of stoic armed heros, Video-games don't cause violence and that's supported, but I think people's ideas of the role of "heros" or "protectors" (specifically men's) obligations and actions when armed leaks into the police force quite visibly.
Yes. And super quick decision making that relies on racial profiling is the main problem
At the time of me writing this comment its the first time I saw the video. He did a great job with all the infromation prior to the look at police brutality. Then it hit home and I think it makes this video all the more important. As stated in the video, police aren't trained to aim for the head, so why, in so many police killings, does the officer go for the head?
It's a terrifying relatity that media, press, even leaders either glorify or focus on how the killing was done and who did it.
I remember a conversation years ago. When you focus on the killer and how he/she killed someone, it glorifies the person and reinforces that idea in others. When a shooting happens, be it one victim or many, we should focus on who the victim(s) was(where). There shouldn't be glory in the kill, instead the focus should be the mourning.
And the rioters are like Captain Price. The ends don't justify the means. The means are always right because of who it's done by.
@@bigolgreasemangreg1314 So either get murdered by an armed thug, or get murdered by a government sanctioned armed thug? As a Brit, the concept of the police being dangerous is totally strange to me. In the UK, most police don't have guns, and those who do are given very rigerous training, and even then, most firearms officers go their entire career without ever firing a shot on duty as shooting someone is a last resort option after non-lethal methods haven't worked. Armed and dangerous police is not normal in the rest of the world.
it is NO GROUNDS to burning down cities though. i hope you at least agree with that point.
"who's the ESRB to stand up to the word of god? so i got resident evil 4-"
You saying "I'll give you these papers for free" is actually really amazing! Knowledge gate keeping sucks hard. The paywall to a resource meant to improve society is super dumb.
I'm sick of "gatekeeping" being used as a bad thing, gatekeeping is good, it just matters who you gatekeep.
@@robokill387 how is gate keeping knowledge beneficial to anyone except the wallets of those in ivory towers? Having free access to more knowledge would only be good
@@Goblin4Coin i think the essence of gatekeeping itself was the thing they were talking about. non-gatekept fandom usually turns to shit with many weird people doing weird things. non-gatekept research papers can be interpreted wrongly and the wrong interpretation can be perceived as correct in the public. not to mention bad research papers can gain traction as factual too (ex. dunning-kruger effect is now being debated whether it's actually real or not (apparently the statistics were autocorrelation))
gatekeeping doesn't have to act like a bouncer on da club. just making sure someone got the correct idea of the subject they're participating in is enough
I got actual shivers. This is amazing and so well thought out.
"...where JFK's 'self' was destroyed. The frame where he went from the president to an annihilated object."
Holy mother of Buddha your words are brilliant. Please continue shining in this fashion. Oh holy thing. Φ
Kinda sounds like a Jaden Smith tweet tbh
@@wellingtonbruh3756 we were going for 'modern nutcase' so that's pretty close. thank you! :3
@@NTSTS0 we live in a society
@@wellingtonbruh3756 pure pwnage episode 10 reference :o
ф?
Actually, not only did the grunt birthday party not distract from the fun, it made me cherish the headshots more, and try to master it with every weapon.
got to get that confetti.
ok I watched this first at least a year ago and it's been echoing around my brain since so I'm back. Excellent work! I learned so much and I think about this essay every time I make a headshot in a game!
Just have to comment on one thing. at the mention of the john wick fighting style. It is basic military training, when you fire upon your target. You always shoot 2 to the body 1 to the head, it is to ensure your opponent does not get back up. John wick is showing extremely good military tactics and weapon handling in the movie, so it is not surprising when he shoots into the body then finishes with the head.
Eh, that's not really standard training or what you'd use in most cases AIU. It sounds like you're referencing the Mozambique/Failure drill, which AFIK is usually just recommended for when you're in a close quarters engagement whilst using a pistol, which allows you a lot more room in terms of hitting your target but you still have to be a pretty alright shot . Otherwise at the distance and context most military engagements happen in, trying to hit the head is far less than ideal.
Plus, per se a "kill" isn't really even the need most of the time, that's why FMJ is used (a part from it being illegal to use hollow points in war) because a shot but still alive soldier is much more of a burden than a body and most people are done in a firefight after getting shot at least once, especially considering bullets can turn bones into powder and organs into paste.
Well, it's just ideal CQC practice, being able to do it constantly and consistently just shows how skilled the character is
@@Speedojesus the reason it's not really standard training for militarys is because it's typically a bad practice to commit war crimes, which is pretty much what it is because the last shot to the head is to stop anyone who is injured from getting up and killing you forcing you into another fight that you may not want, but it is a war crime to shoot an injured man who isn't actively combative which someone with multiple shots to the chest probably wouldn't be
now a man who is shot but gets up and continues to fight is combative but you still have to try to secure the person and they may not always be immediately back into action after getting shot, the mozabique drill is still really good for home defense against multiple intruders and such because it puts a person out of action without a chance of retaliation and after 2 shots to the chest the headshot won't be that difficult to get
@@Speedojesus to be fair, "close quarters engagement whilst using a pistol" accurately describes a LOT of the fights where John Wick is using the Mozambique drill.
At roughly the 18 minute mark theres a statement thats not entirely accurate.
"When do we shoot someone in the head in real life? Almost never"
Or something along those lines. And for the most part, this is correct. However there is a noteable exception from the military. Its not snipers, but actually during CQB.
Its standard procedure to aim right for the center of the face when room clearing. Its taught in manuals and in training. Its the preferred way to kill someone in that context. The reason being, it prevents retaliation. Even with a heart shot, it can take a couple seconds before the target is actually dead, during which time theyre still a potential threat.
But if you shoot them right in the face, theyre dead instantly most of the time.
But if you can't shoot them in the face, then shoot them twice in the heart.
Headshot is ideal, but not always practical. So thats when a double tap to the chest comes in. Its not uncommon for special forces operators to shoot people again after they go down, just to make sure theyre dead.
Dont they teach this in British special forces so the target doesnt flail around possibly hurting someone??
@Christian Morgan I learn somethin new every day!
Same with what he said about snipers before they trained by shooting at a T which symbolized the space from the eyes to the chin or shoulders to navel
There's another one as well.
Taliban in Afghanistan often fight while blazed out of their minds on marijuana so if you body shot them they just keep coming. So if it is practical to do so you should aim for the head.
DemonGrenade274 ya it's in the video.
I always feel upset after watching your videos, but I can't seem to stop. This was an eye opening thing for me and for that I thank you.
Characters like Anthony Carmine from Gears of War or Kat from Halo Reach also really sell how it feels to have an ally- one right next to you even, have their self destroyed right in front of you. Mid sentence even in both cases. They're stark reminders in war stories that not every sacrifice has a real reason behind it, nor are they necessarily the choice of our heroes all the time, and how instantaneous that action can really be. It's an interesting to be on the receiving end of the same action you've been putting others through gleefully up until that point.
Your video essays are incredible. Thanks for all your hard work on these!
This video could have been 30 minutes longer and I wouldn't have noticed. I really enjoyed your take along with the references provided. I look forward to more of your work. Please keep it coming.
This is so amazingly good. Video essay goals honestly.
Seriously this man is on another level.
Love the use of "The Beginner's Guide" music at the video's emotional peak, just like the game. My favorite narrative driven game of all time. Love your stuff, keep up the great work.
The alignment of you saying “modern medicine” and cutting to Surgeon Simulator was delightfully perfect!
My drama teacher in high school told me one time that he didn't mind violence or foul language only if it was necessary to tell the story accurately and artistically. Being able to separate the art from real life is normal and something that menatally disturbed and violent people cannot do.
yeah
“Firing the Colt M1911 is different”
*Proceeds to show Glock*
*also proceeds to call the magazine a clip*
incredible work!
That execution photo you displayed gave me a really bad impression on the executor: Nguyễn Ngọc Loan. It's only a while later that I found out that the one being executed - Nguyễn Văn Lém - was not exactly as innocent as I thought. And I know that this video isn't being made to comment on that specific picture, but I think you'd still bring your point across without having to paint such a bad picture on the executor.
the relevance to the video is the cultural reaction to the picture. someone doesn't have to be a good person for their photographed death to be traumatizing.
@@JacobGeller If that's it relevance to the video then telling the viewers the full context wouldn't hurt it. And neither will it affect your point of "someone doesn't have to be a good person for their photographed death to be traumatizing".
@@e.c2623 I think you don't understand the purpose of making a video essay. Or maybe you don't understand the horror of war, violence, and death, on a human, gorey, sit-in-the-bathtub-unable-to-move, way. Who knows. But in case it's the former, please consider how sloppy it would be to write an essay and make unnecessary tangents. I think the result would be a 40 min video full poor transitions, unclear arguments, and i believe it would be difficult to pay attention to.
@@grassgeese3916 basically this. You can do your own research and find contextualization to the conversations.
It was never definitively proven that Loan killed the Tuan family. It's almost as if summarily executing someone without an actual trial is a war crime because it robs anyone of definitive answers.
This made me uncomfortable.... and it’s because I’ve absorbed a lot of this media without thinking. This shit is actually horrific
It's hard to deal with, when your eyes become open, and you realize just how badly you're being manipulated.
Why did you feel uncomfortable exactly? What did the video teach you that you didn't already know? I play Halo and I know that killing feels good. The point of the game is to put the player in a stressful situation, just like the battlefield, where every shot counts and the faster you eliminate the threat, the quicker you can reach the next goal point. I still have empathy for those in the real world that die and no longer become people. I don't see the correlation between viewing the in-game enemies as inhuman and viewing people in the real world the same way, do you?
@@SilverShadow02 suspension of disbelief is a thing that happens
7:03 To give a bit of reference to that picture:
The suspect, was cought the night before on the site of a mass grave, where vietcong agents had killed the families of lot's of vietnamese police and military personell during the Ted offensive. He then was subsequently trialed for his war crimes he commited disguised as a civilian.
The price winning picture however, ruined the life of the colonel - as he was deemed the monster in this picture and became involuntarily the face of violence in war.
allthatsinteresting.com/saigon-execution
Yup, that's what happens when you shot a restrained man in the head to a public not entirely desensitized to violence. If he'd had waited for the rope or the firing squad to do the deed, nobody would have given a shit.
@@polocatfan Wasn't a combatant and another combatant, it was a guy who murdered a guy's family, and the guy who's family was murdered.
If you think that situation was even remotely close to a soldier being taken prisoner in WWII or something then that's pedantry, that specific situation embodies the exact reason why people will always commit war crimes and why wringing your hands over it is pointless. I would do the same thing, if you wouldn't it means you're a coward (i suspect you would regardless), though neither of us are placed in the situation, luckily enough.
I read in a book recently that the journalist regretted taking that picture for the rest of his life, 1. because he knew the Colonel was a good man in a bad situation just doing his duty, and 2. because he never wanted to be famous for a picture of murder.
@@polocatfan Kind of like in the Russian Civil War. Red Army committed a War Crime (firing on non hositle White Army soldiers who headed towards them under the Red’s false peace) and the Whites executed them in turn. Problem is, for all the talk of how War Crimes are wrong (and they ARE wrong) many do NOT talk about how, let’s face it, unless you can prevent one domino from falling, they WILL fall. It’s human nature.
Two wrongs dont make a right
Dang, violent video games decidedly don't cause violence, but they may have something to do with some people's indifference to irl violence. That's scary.
Thank you for the reward photo at the end.
(But yeah, I'll be mulling over the question we should be asking.)
I had the most gun nut response possible to 21:17, it's a glock you can tell at a glance by how blocky it is, it's loaded by magazines not clips.
same, but I think it might've been intentional.
@@commander31able60 no he's just ignorant
If you really think misnaming a firearm somehow nullifies his entire argument than you are probably as thick as pig shit and the entire thesis of this passed over your head.
@@tiberiuskirk2593 When did he say that it nullified the entire argument?
Tiberius Kirk you just assumed that
I watched your work on Shadow of the Colossus on a different browser, mostly because I've learned that RUclips will do some crazy things to my recommendations if I watch willy nilly. Then I watched your video on Daughters of Ash, having kinda forgotten who you were. Then I watched this video. I won't say this video is the one that made me subscribe or think about donating in the future, but this video tied it all together. Your careful research, how deeply you care, the respect with which you approach the topic. It made me cry.
You're amazing. Keep it up.
wow, this was a great video. thank you for this.
Another fantastic video! Thanks for producing such high quality content, I appreciate it!
Using Resident Evil 4 as examples of headshots in video games I feel is a bit misplaced because Resi 4 actually subverted it a lot. Headshots were usually most effective early game but mid to late game it wasn't. Most of the enemies could take more than 1 headshot and it usually wasn't the most effective way to dispatch them. A good example is an enemy running at Leon could be shot in the leg which would stun them or knock them to the ground. Allowing you to knife them to save ammo. You could also shoot an enemy's weapon out of their hand. There were also enemies with helmets that shielded their heads, including some miniboss and boss style enemies. The developers used their then advanced targeting and enemy reaction system to give the player reasons to not just shoot at the head.
Bear in mind later games with advanced targeting systems like Fallout 3 didn't even bother to do any of this, there is no reason to not headshot an enemy using VATS. So Resi 4 has to be commended in this regard.
6:56 to be fair, the guy he was executing was a brutal serial killer
A defeated and unarmed soldier isn't a serial killer.
@@truedarklander you're right, they arent. However an assassin that specifically targets soldiers families and has a body count of well over 34 people is, here's a direct quote: "...he [Nguyễn Văn Lém] was an assassin and the leader of a Viet Cong death squad who had been targeting and killing South Vietnamese National Police officers and their families." Additionally, "he was more or less caught in the act, at the site of a mass grave. This grave contained the bodies of no less than seven South Vietnamese police officers, as well as their families, around 34 bound and shot bodies in total."
You can read more here: www.google.com/amp/s/cherrieswriter.com/2015/08/03/the-story-behind-the-famous-saigon-execution-photo/amp/
TheDarklander II so if u saw hitler unarmed and defeated even after knowing what he did ud just let him go?
@@truedarklander You brain dead
@@junglistmassiv Hitler wasn't a "unarmed soldier"
He was a war criminal, and court marshalls would 100% of the time give him death penalty much like what his henchmen got.
I always thought the head shot spares pain. Getting shot in the leg would suck way more. Especially if you can't reach the hospital.
this video is beautiful and one of the best thing i've seen this year. thank you.
this one's pretty rough to come back to
Stings a bit.
Breonna Taylor did nothing wrong
Fucking spare me your bullshit
@shcrodinger's Lion More like Schrödinger's dickhead, except you are definitely a dick head from what I gather
Cop on, If you were half as smart as you think you are you wouldn't be posting bullshit online
@@missilelaneost.v1340 lol fuck off with the blm bullshit if you can't understand "standown" then you will probably die.
I’m surprised you never brought up some mercy associated with a headshot execution, it’s messy but quick, no pain (if done correctly)
yeah, headshots are really the most humane.. this video makes no sense... from the "headshot" angle... a gun is a weapon meant to kill.. and if your going to kill... go for the head... saves ammo, saves pain....
@@adam88721 You never aim for the head at least in self-defense with a firearm. Center mass has the highest hit probability.
@@SarethZhukov314 thats not nescarrily true. It depends on a lot of things, like how accurate you are, how far is your attacker, your enviroment. But say your attacker also has a gun, it is definetely better to shoot him in the head than the body because even if he is shot in the body he could still shoot you. It will take time for him to die. The basement scene from Inglorious bastards shows this really well, that people shot and hurt can still fire.
@@SarethZhukov314 Yes its what military and police train for , center mass.. just saying head shots are quicker and less painful way to go.
@Jalan Marshall How is he a piece of shit? It really is one of if not the most humane way to execute someone.
The Bayeux Tapestry is of course the first visually recorded headshot assassination.
This was way more interesting than I expected it to be going in. So much more depth than I was anticipating, and different directions of thought as well.
The almighty algorithm brought me to your Super Mario Galaxy video, which led me to this, which earned a hard subscribe. Excellent video.
ye same i was lookin for a decent review because i thought about buying a wii and now im here watching oddly political content
Jacques Rancière once wrote that reality has to be fictionalized to be dealt with/understood/thought about. That is the key.
This is a topic that I think about a lot, but you're the only channel I've ever seen discussing it at length. I'm somewhat of a gaming addict myself and I often go through phases of wanting to be hopeful about upcoming releases but ultimately dissatisfied because of the predominant trope of killing as many things as possible, as efficiently as possible. This exists in many forms of media, especially those targeted at masculine audiences. Having recently finished Death Stranding, I have hope that titles diverging from said trope will be increasingly produced and celebrated.
"if the brain is the self what is left of the boy shot twice in the head" is such a good quote