I was watching TV the other night and I saw two interesting commercials back to back. The first was for some new, incredibly realistic (graphics-wise) war video game. The premise of the game was that you team up with another online partner and fight against other teams online. I was pretty impressed with the graphics, and one scene in the commercial in particular: one guy was injured, and his online partner was dragging him away with one hand. While doing so, both guys were firing in the direction from which they were retreating.
Immediately following this commercial was a preview for the movie “Stop-Loss,” which seems to be about a soldier (or two) from Texas coming home from Iraq (presumably), being reunited with their families, and then being told they were being shipped back to Iraq. The stress on both the soldier and the family seems to be the crux of the movie.
I was struck by the dissonance between the two commercials - one glorifying war for entertainment purposes, and one examining the stress, pressure and fear war puts on individuals and families. So I got to thinking; what do adults think of war video games? Specifically, for those of you on this board that are veterans, what do you think of these video games? Is it bothersome to you that people can play these games for entertainment purposes? There seems to be dozens of these games on the market these days.
I haven’t played video games in quite a long time, and the last game I did play regularly was in fact a war game. It was called SOCOM, and I thought it was fun from a strategic standpoint. This was 5-6 years ago, and war wasn’t as polarizing an issue, and I never really once thought about it. But things are very different in 2008, and I’ve matured a bit since my sophomore year in college.
Are war video games over the top? Is it bothersome to any of you that it seems to be capitalizing on the worst parts of war? I don’t mean this as a passive-aggressive political rant by any means. I’m genuinely curious to hear people’s opinions.
I think just about ANY of the FPS (First person shooter) games are over the top and have been for years, but that’s the case with a lot of violence based video games. Take a look at mortal combat, even 12 or so years ago, it showed one of the victory moves of one guy ripping the head and spine out of his opponent. One game that I thought would be good a few years ago (Phantasmagoria) was nothing more than a bad point and click puzzle solver interspersed with scenes that were probably the inspiration for the movie Se7en.
It’s not just the games, though. Overall as a society, we are getting desensitized to pain, suffering and gore at a very early age. I nearly got into a fight with a couple when I saw them walking out of Saw III with a crying 8 year old, and asked them if they really thought that was an appropriate movie for their daughter to see.
Everything around has to be bigger and better than last years model, or more “in your face”, and video games merely reflect this. One really hopes that Darwinism starts taking hold, and all the people that imitate shows like Jackass and that abhorrent show on spike now that shows nothing but crash/injury footage. It’s one step away from televising “Faces of Death”.
Our society is basically becoming like the Romans were. We are becoming an entertainment based society, that gets enjoyment from the pain and suffering of others, the more outrageous the better. Between that and a larcenous government that would be better off declaring bankruptcy, this country has a hard future ahead of it.
Wow. Not sure where that came from, guess I should have had more coffee this morning!
I think we’re certainly desensitized, but I was hoping to specifically talk about war video games. You’re right that games like Mortal Kombat have been around for a while, but I think that game is a bit different because it was pretty much based in fiction. I mean, look at the characters from the game. And in reality, you won’t finish off a duel by ripping someone’s heart out or taking their head and spine straight off the body.
The war games seem to be trying to get as close to projected reality as possible - by that I mean, as close to what consumers think is the reality as possible. While you most likely don’t have people in the world who’ve survived one-on-one fights where someone ripped their heart out of their chest, you certainly do have people who have survived war situations similar to what you see in video games.
Gotcha. Ok, since you put it that way, and that you used dissonance correctly in your OP, I’ll give you a better reply.
The more you see of “real war”, I think the less you will enjoy a video game, because you get an up close picture of the actual pain and suffering that goes on. I am a veteran of the Air Force, where I was a medic working out of the ER. I was never deployed to an active war scene, but I did deal with people that came back with injuries, and people injured (some severely) during war games, exercises, and plain old EOD (Explosive Ordnance Disposal).
When you have to try to comfort, bandage, package, ship and care for someone that is missing their calf because of some unexpected shrapnel when cleaning up the aircraft firing/bombing range, it makes seeing in a video game quite a bit more “real”, and takes whatever enjoyment there is out of it.
The attraction for me used to be the strategy, the teamwork and the adrenaline rush of actually “Ok, MOVE MOVE MOVE!”. When you’ve seen the reality of the aftermath, it loses some of the luster.
Quick background: I’m a combat veteran. I served for 5 years in the active Army, fought with the 101st Airborne in Afghanistan in 2002 (anti-tank platoon leader, HMMWV-mounted Infantry- .50 cal and MK-19 grenade launcher, mounted patrols). I got off active in 2003. Have since rejoined via the National Guard, and intend to stay in until I’m too old or broken to serve any more; I may return to active duty once I’m through school.
I don’t play video games, just not my thing. I don’t like war/1st person shooter games particularly, however. I believe that they desensitize people to violent acts, and make killing seem easy, or passe. What they leave out are the parts that truly inhibit killing: the smell and the feel (the physical sensations)- nothing smells worse than a vehicle full of people that has run over a mine. I can still smell the blood scorched into the pavement of Highway 4, and its terrible. I burned the boots I had on that day when I got home- I knew what the stains were, even though it just looked like dirt. The pathetic cries of someone hurt so badly, and the stunned looks of those who witnessed it. To draw a bead on another human with a weapon and squeeze the trigger is a highly trainable response. These games do that, but they provide none of the psychological backdrop that supports the wartime shooter after the act. These games reward with points, and whatever else is built into them, but show none of the downside. If people really saw what killing was about, they wouldn’t be so eager to take part in it.
I highly recommend David Grossman’s book On Killing- it gives some great detail on what goes on in the mind of someone who kills. Its written from a military perspective, and I found that it resonated with me quite a bit.
over a mine. I can still smell the blood scorched into the pavement of Highway 4, and its terrible. I burned the boots I had on that day when I got home- I knew what the stains were, even though it just looked like dirt. The pathetic cries of someone hurt so badly, and the stunned looks of those who witnessed it. To draw a bead on another human with a weapon and squeeze
Amen. One of the most distinctive smells I’ve ever come across is burnt blood.
Thank you for your response, and thank you for your service.
I certainly can imagine that once you’ve been exposed to the effects of what you see in the games, you’ll lose the attraction to the game. I can appreciate that once the game (video game, not war game) becomes real, the cause / effect relationship of the video game becomes a different story.
I hope this isn’t too sensitive a question: After working in the field a bit, do war video games insult you, or bother you at all?
Thank you for your response, and thank you for your service.
I certainly can imagine that once you’ve been exposed to the effects of what you see in the games, you’ll lose the attraction to the game. I can appreciate that once the game (video game, not war game) becomes real, the cause / effect relationship of the video game becomes a different story.
I hope this isn’t too sensitive a question: After working in the field a bit, do war video games insult you, or bother you at all?
Not really, I just don’t enjoy playing them. I think they do a disservice in that they “glorify” war a bit, but hell, Hollywood does that every other day.
As I said to Devlin, thank you for your response, and thank you very much for your service.
Your response is exactly the response I assumed I’d get. It seems to me the games build into the player a binary response: Shoot and kill, get points. Clearly, the reality is not black and white, as you indicate in your response.
I’ll ask you the same question I ask Devlin, and I apologize if this is touching on sensitive ground: Do the war games insult you? Put another way, do you see these games and think, ‘I can’t believe someone would find that type of thing entertaining,’ or, ‘You have no idea what this is really like, and it shouldn’t be game material?’
Consider this, the most popular game system right now is the Nintendo Wii. It’s best selling game is Wii Sports and has no violence, except maybe boxing. Sure there are violent games, but the Wii is proving that there is a huge audience for less violent games that bring people together.
Consider this, the most popular game system right now is the Nintendo Wii. It’s best selling game is Wii Sports and has no violence, except maybe boxing. Sure there are violent games, but the Wii is proving that there is a huge audience for less violent games that bring people together.
There always have been, but not many people want to play a video game of golf where it’s move the joystick back, then forward, then mash a button as fast as you can. The Wii makes it more of a personal skill game rather than a reaction game.
I don’t necessarily think people flock to the Wii because it’s less violent. But sure, less violent games are popular, and have always been popular. I’m not denying that; nor am I claiming that all popular games are war/violent games.
There seem to be quite a few war games on the market, which speaks to their popularity. That’s not to say that they are the most popular, but it certainly seems like a popular niche in the gaming industry.
My guys would go out on missions in Iraq and come back to our bunker & (after cleaning weapons, vehicles, AARs, etc) play these big group games of Halo. there’d be all this hootin and hollerin as various teams caught each other off-guard and mowed the other down. I’d be sitting in our kitchen/meeting area talking with the Sergeant Major and our S3 and we’d just shake our heads and wonder at it all.
My observation is that guys who’ve ‘seen the elephant’ (to use an old phrase) don’t seem to have trouble with what I’d term stylized or fictionalized combat/violence because it’s not believable and doesn’t trigger the emotions they’re trying to escape. Let me put it another way–I have no problem seeing movies with stylized or fictionalized violence (Matrix, Predator, etc) because it’s not realistic. I’ve no desire to see movies that are increasingly accurate at showing what actual combat is like (BlackHawk Down for example)–why would I want to relive that shit?
Obviously there are plenty of exceptions at either end of this general observation. IMOP.
So as for me, I’ll stick to playing WOW–I have a Holy Palladin and he is a great combat healer.
I believe the ad you saw was for “Frontline: Fuels of War,” a successor of sorts to a type of “wargame” first introduced onto the scene by battlefield 1942 (which lead to their modern conflict Battlefield 2, based on a middle East Struggle). This is A multiplayer game where you can fight as either side in matches of up to 64 players (on PC). The problem many have with these modern war videogames, especially the one’s that are pushing visual “realism” (such as the current hit, Call of Duty 4), has been stated in posts above. They portray violence in overtly realistic scenarios without the emotional and visceral attachment.
Now to provide the counterpoint. Videogames have always aimed to provide entertainment. It is human nature, especially that of young males, to search for competition and “adrenaline” stimulating experiences. Now, as athletes, we have our sport to channel this urge. However, you have to admit it is much more economical and time saving to spend $50 on a game, and 30 minutes to an hour playing it on and off to get that stimulation then the thousands we spend, and entire days and weeks training. I digress…the reason for the popularity of violent videogames, especially modern warfare games, is the immediacy of the material. The youth are bombarded with warfare images and stories, they are interested by it, and the gaming industry recognizes this. Now, it may throw the moral compass off, and be offensive to many groups, but you can’t deny it’s marketing effectiveness. Even the United States Army has seen the recruiting benefit of wargames with the release of the “America’s Army” series, touting ultimate realism as it is created by the guys who know a thing or two about war.
To quote Stephen Colbert, “the free market has spoken, therefore it must be right.”
My observation is that guys who’ve ‘seen the elephant’ (to use an old phrase) don’t seem to have trouble with what I’d term stylized or fictionalized combat/violence because it’s not believable and doesn’t trigger the emotions they’re trying to escape. Let me put it another way–I have no problem seeing movies with stylized or fictionalized violence (Matrix, Predator, etc) because it’s not realistic.
This was what I was referring to when I said to an earlier poster that I didn’t think Mortal Kombat was particularly relevant because it was essentially fictionalized violence, not realistic. I’d say that Halo isn’t particularly realistic, either. But it’s certainly more closely related to warfare than Mortal Kombat.
I don’t disagree with any of what you’ve said. I’m just curious to see what people, especially veterans, think when they see the games, especially considering the psychological affects many people deal with after they’ve lived the scenario that war games amplify.
I’m not positing a moral argument here; I don’t really care whether or not these games are made or bought, and I’m not saying there should be a boycott of sorts. I’m just interested in hearing what people who’ve lived the experience think about virtualizing the experience for fun.
It is interesting to note, then, that many of these games are designed and created by veterans or, in the case of America’s Army, active members of the military. One of the most provocative and realistic wargame available, the “Insurgency” mod for Half-Life 2 was created by active duty and veterans.
Not to create an argument, but how do veterans react to this?
As a game developer in my (little amount of) spare time, I find the feedback this thread is receiving to be important.
That is very interesting. Thanks for that input. I hadn’t really thought of that angle, but it does make sense. Who better to develop realistic games than veterans themselves?
I’m not 100% against war but I am against the non-sense war in Iraq and many others. That said I actually enjoyed the first version of the game "Battlefield " and played it online with friends. It is fun to know play it with friends and use tactics, etc. But I also see how it could very well desentesize people and that this could be unhealthy for some teenagers that play it 12hrs a day.