Let's Talk War Games

[Sforza]

A week ago Penny Arcade published an interview with a WWII veteran. It detailed his experiences in the Navy, as well as his opinions on games based on warfare. Below are the most relevant parts of the interview. If you read the source article, there's also more than a few recollections of his time in the Philippines.

Q. What do you think about gamers playing video games based on World War II?

A. I haven’t really paid enough attention to the games themselves to be able to tell you truthfully, but I would think, if it’s just people shooting one another, I don’t think it’s a proper thing for young people to do. I think it sets a bad example for them, because they get into the mood of doing that, and that begins their lifestyle. And that’s not the lifestyle you want.

Q. When groups of gamers are playing these games together it is common for some of them to play as the enemy. They might play as Germans defending the beach at Normandy for example. What's your opinion of that?

A. Well, it ties back in to what I already said. I don’t think it’s an appropriate game. I think they can make games that will interest kids, that don’t have to include war. We don’t need to be killing each other in games. There’s other ways of strategizing and using the kind of skills that make those games popular.

Q. Is there anything you would like to say to gamers who are fans of these sorts of games?

A. If [the games] are what I think they are, I think [the gamers that play them] should stop and take a look at what you’re actually doing. Try to reason through and ask what’s the advantage of what you’re doing. What kind of an education is that giving you?

Q. Do you think they would have a different opinion if they’d been through an actual war?

A. Yes. Definitely.

Source: Look for the My Grandpa entry.

***

Now, a question I wanted to bring up is this - what's so fun about playing games that have wartime settings? Is it any different from other FPS? I'm not a fan of the genre myself, not because I don't like it but more because I never had the time to play them.

Another point that might be up for discussion is the trivializing of war in general, and if it stands a chance of affecting the psyche of younger players, making them more willing to result to violence in situations where disagreement with another party is present.

Lastly, what differentiates mecha-based games such as those of the Gundam, Armored Core and similar franchises from other war games? I'm guessing that it's easier to detach from reality because of all the fictional technology/settings.

What are you opinions? I thought that this might be worth asking since I know there are some with Politics and/or Psychology backgrounds here.

[clonezero]

looking back I've never really had a great time playing games based on real wars ... its just that a game based on a real war ... sometimes it was good sometimes it was bad this I say about wartime strategy games on FPS I don't have much to say other than I really really get dizzy playing any WWII FPS dunno why but that it. all in all I play WWII FPSs more because there FPSs rather than it being a WW2 game.

they do it for money, feeding on the aggression borne and fostered by such games. something the guy on futureweapons summed it up while he was using the controls of some remote controlled military buggy "its like playing with a giant toy" nuf said.

fiction based stuff are more of an escape from reality (and that is its main tool for feeding on consumers) other reality based wargames and those close to them have more of a "it felt like I was there" gig on it, it utilizes stuff from the real world ... real weapons, real scenery, and most importantly real enemies ( nazi, muslim, etc etc etc.)

well this is how I see it ...

[Jack-O]

Well I don't play War games(like counter) but I play Red Alert, General, Starcraft(or strategy war games) why? it could affect my philosophy in life, and havent tried those games yet.

[Lord_Leperman]

Now, a question I wanted to bring up is this - what's so fun about playing games that have wartime settings? Is it any different from other FPS? I'm not a fan of the genre myself, not because I don't like it but more because I never had the time to play them.

Another point that might be up for discussion is the trivializing of war in general, and if it stands a chance of affecting the psyche of younger players, making them more willing to result to violence in situations where disagreement with another party is present.

Lastly, what differentiates mecha-based games such as those of the Gundam, Armored Core and similar franchises from other war games? I'm guessing that it's easier to detach from reality because of all the fictional technology/settings.

What are you opinions? I thought that this might be worth asking since I know there are some with Politics and/or Psychology backgrounds here.

Its like watching an interactive war movie. Chances are, if you don't like war films, then you might not like the genre of shooters as well.

The single player campaign of these games often focus on the heroism of specific individuals (mostly fictional), during a conflict that was mostly portrayed in mass media as being black and white (Allies were good, Nazis were bad). The stories and scripted events were well done to have a sense of epic grandness to each story, as WWII shooters typically involve the player in historic battles based on real historic events such as the Normandy landings on D-Day, Operation Marketgarden, and The Battle of the Buldge. Lesser side stories were also included, though some of them slightly fictionalized to for the sake of gameplay.

The characters of the game are also a big factor, since you're often paired up with with a squad, whose members are often likable characters whom you get to know. This gives a sense of camaraderie or brotherhood and players identify themselves with the squad mates despite not being able to directly communicate with them. Stories also deal with how war changes individuals for better or for worse. It can break down even the toughest men into crying babies through shell shock, or elevate the lowest of common thieves into heroes through their bravery (such as the case of one of the characters in Call of Duty 3).

The selling point of these games is not so much as they are WWII in setting, but they're just that nicely done as FPS games. There's varied terrain that represents different locations where the conflicts happened, and multiple weapons that were based on their real life counterparts. In addition, the gritty atmosphere of a war-torn world coupled with the shear scale of the conflict unlike anything seen in human history immerses players into the story.

As for the "violence in games affecting youth in resolving conflicts" issue, I think players in general can clearly distinguish between playing a game and a real life conflict and know how to handle things differently. Though I'll point out that people who do stupid things don't really do it because of video games alone. There are other larger contributing factors such as the mental state of the person perpetrating the act, and the influence of various media, his household environment and his accessibility to do stupidity (if weapons are within reach etc.).

Oh and to answer your last question. I just love giant robots. their apeal to me is just because of that.

[Sforza]

Randomly, CNN has this guide up: Gift Finder 2007 - Parent's Guide to Finding Video Games.

I actually read it. BioShock, CoD4 and Manhunt 2 (duh) are described as "Danger! Violence! Avoid!
If you're worried about your kids being exposed to violence, rough language, and suggestive themes, these are games you will absolutely want to avoid (even if all five are high-quality games)."

And randomly again, if you read the article, Max Fightmaster would make an awesome torpedoman. He's a one man torpedo on his own! Because Max Fightmaster can take down anything with his bare hands! With his obviously gigantic torpedo!

[Sforza]

The characters of the game are also a big factor, since you're often paired up with with a squad, whose members are often likable characters whom you get to know. This gives a sense of camaraderie or brotherhood and players identify themselves with the squad mates despite not being able to directly communicate with them. Stories also deal with how war changes individuals for better or for worse. It can break down even the toughest men into crying babies through shell shock, or elevate the lowest of common thieves into heroes through their bravery (such as the case of one of the characters in Call of Duty 3).

The selling point of these games is not so much as they are WWII in setting, but they're just that nicely done as FPS games. There's varied terrain that represents different locations where the conflicts happened, and multiple weapons that were based on their real life counterparts. In addition, the gritty atmosphere of a war-torn world coupled with the shear scale of the conflict unlike anything seen in human history immerses players into the story.

Sorry for the double post. It's the quality that matters anyway I think this thread is going in an interesting direction (at least until someone decides to post military themed lolis xD).

After reading your reactions, I wanted to pose this question as a follow-up: given that the selling point of these games usually remains as "because they're good first person shooters", why do they need to be made in the first place? From CZ's answer, I would come up with the conclusion that they provide for simple to understand, black and white storytelling because of the nature of the conflict.

Doesn't this in effect trivialize the war and all the underlying reasons for it (by romanticizing only specific aspects), as well as the millions of people who actually have to live with it everyday? It seems to work towards desensitizing people who play these games to war. The US military confirmed it with America's Army and its subsequent recruitment drive.

[Lord_Leperman]

I suppose the prevalent (though admittedly, overused) theme of WWII shooters was born from the success of Medal of Honor for the PSone, which was a critically acclaimed and a commercially successful game. While not the 1st WWII FPS game, it had good pacing and a decent story (coincidentally, Stephen Spelberg wrote the story for the game). Born out of the game's success, the sequels followed and others followed the same direction, much like other good games (the Resident Evil franchise and similar games come to mind) borrowing the same theme and ideas while implementing new ones in the process. They don't really need to be made, they're just really profitable for companies to make them, if done correctly.

Let's also not forget that these games were built from the ground up as a form of entertainment, and thus built to entertain us. As such, not all aspects of war are covered, such as a 20 Km hike towards the battlefield won't exactly make for a fun game, nor will clearing out dead bodies of fallen allies and enemies will make for a positive experience. The games don't exactly have the intention of desensitizing war for everyone much like how fighting games don't teach you how to fight or how to tackle a bear in a real life situation (god forbid, if whatever Xiao Yu does in Tekken is an effective anti-bear martial art), its just there to entertain people.

I believe it is up to the person playing to make his or her own views on war. It's totally up to the person if one would see it as a fun orchestra of explosions or a tragic tale of suffering, but as I have said earlier, people who play video games clearly distinguish whats in a video game and whats in real life.

There's just a lot of things good about these games, I would just suggest trying to play one for a bit and see if it gets you hooked (Preferably something like Call of Duty).

America's Army is a special case though, as it was built from the ground up as a recruitment tool/propaganda for recruitment for the US army, though its success for its intention is very questionable. The only data I've read on its effectiveness as a recruitment tool is that 1 out of 5 people who enlisted in the US army in 2003 have played the game (America's Army was released in 2002). Still, this data is barely conclusive to judge the game's effects on its target audience, as many other factors have to be considered such as the time period's distance from 9/11 (where I'm assuming that there was a sharp increase in people who enlisted for the US military), and other factors.

[Grim]

I've actually thought of the war-themed FPSs and RTSs as a kind of saturated market, until now. I've never thought of them as dangerous outside the realm of being violent videogames. One excerpt from Grandpa's interview caught my attention:

Q. Do you think they would have a different opinion if they’d been through an actual war?
A. Yes. Definitely.

I've never thought of these types of games as a desensitizing factor towards war in general. They desensitize violence, sure, that's already been pointed out to death already. But not war itself (and that's mainly going to be my focus, although it's basically the same argument as the movement against violence in videogames). Grandpa's answer shows the possibility that these games do diminish a bit of the horror that war can be, and instead turn it into a mere cerebral or reactionary or entertaining experience. Which is obviously bad.

Hoping not to erode my stand on whose responsibility it is to police the types of games we play, to that extent I can agree with him.

In the end, I'm torn between "oh, people can handle this stuff without being affected" and "he's right, people's opinion of these games would change if they actually fought in World War 2".

To answer your other question, I would agree that the sci-fi setting of mech games like Armored Core distance them a bit from the actual experience of pain and destruction. I mean, the worst you can get in the game is a blown-up mech, and all that actually translates to is a rumble on your controller. And you can turn that off.

[Sforza]

The games don't exactly have the intention of desensitizing war for everyone much like how fighting games don't teach you how to fight or how to tackle a bear in a real life situation (god forbid, if whatever Xiao Yu does in Tekken is an effective anti-bear martial art), its just there to entertain people.

One thing that I've been wondering about forever! Is King a lion or a man? Is he the world's first human/animal crossbreed? How the hell does he keep his tail wagging? How does Anna fight in heels? Why can Raven teleport short distances? How can Yoshimitsu fly using his sword? Why the butt is Heihachi still alive?

The comparison doesn't really work since Tekken is obviously not based on (possible) real world situations.

I believe it is up to the person playing to make his or her own views on war. It's totally up to the person if one would see it as a fun orchestra of explosions or a tragic tale of suffering, but as I have said earlier, people who play video games clearly distinguish whats in a video game and whats in real life.

The problem here is that a lot of parents don't read the suggested age for players on the box. The OP post was based both on the Penny Arcade article and a video game segment on CNN where a kid around 10 years old was playing a wartime FPS was asked why he liked playing, and he said, "Because I can kill people". That was a little discomforting, and sad at the same time.

The argument might then be more about responsible parenting and if violent games should be given the same treatment as porn.

[Lord_Leperman]

My point was these games are fictionalized representations of reality, much like life bars represent the health of a character in many games. Not exactly realistic, but is designed to keep pace with the game system. Even if a game claims to be a realistic simulation of reality, it is still a simulation and thus will discount some elements present in real life.

My Tekken analogy was in line in a sense that its fighting styles are based from real world martial arts fictionalized as they are represented by different characters with their own weird quirks. Baek uses Taekwondo, Steve uses boxing, and King uses many wrestling moves just to name a few, along side a fighting bear, panda, and a kangaroo. As I said earlier, both games are fictionalized accounts of reality with some elements being grossly exaggerated, like a player's survivability in many FPS games against overwhelming odds and instant consumable health packs with a dash of realism such as the weapon modeling. Remember, both these games are meant to entertain and they fictionalize certain elements of reality for entertainment purposes!

Let's face it, killing things and blowing stuff up in games is part of the fun, maybe they should follow-up that question they asked the 10 year old kid who was interviewed with "Would you kill in real life just like the ones in the video game?" then we'll get an answer if video games do make children want to kill.

[Grim]

Let's face it, killing things and blowing stuff up in games is part of the fun, maybe they should follow-up that question they asked the 10 year old kid who was interviewed with "Would you kill in real life just like the ones in the video game?" then we'll get an answer if video games do make children want to kill.

Haha, the question that's never asked. Most people immediately discount games as a bad influence once they hear the word "kill".

[Sforza]

Haha, the question that's never asked. Most people immediately discount games as a bad influence once they hear the word "kill".

That's true.

...IDDQD