Is Militarism in Modern Games a Problem?

[loc978]

The brainwashing here did not originate with either the military or the games industry (though military recruiting hopped on the bandwagon quickly enough in the Bush Jr. era), and flying a combat drone is even further removed from popular military games from the perspective of an infantryman than Falcon 3.0 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_(video_game_series)] was removed from Wolfenstein 3D [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfenstein_3D].

Modern military FPSes dominate the market because they're easy to make and even easier to sell to the masses of young Americans who were raised in the years after 9/11. Those kids spent their childhoods getting the sentiment of "the US military is awesome" shoved down their throats every day... so of course a large portion of them are going to have that mindset.
Basically, the problem is far more systemic than gaming. The popularity of modern military games is just a symptom.

 

[MaxwellDB]

Certainly, but my point is that the writer of that statement was actively trying to manipulate you where as video games passively manipulate you. The writer is saying "This is how reality is" when he presents you with his rhetoric, actively trying to change your opinion to match his own. Most games say "This is how a certain fantasy vaguely related to reality is" and do not actively attempt to change your opinion.

My over all opinion is that you can never let your guard down, you can never take any statement anyone makes at face value, you can never play a game or read a book without it effecting you in some way. I just don't think the overall effect of video games is so powerful that we will begin preferring war over peace.

Plus, the message in almost all video games, including the heavy military ones, is "War is bad, but we fight because we have to." Many games revolve around finding a way to prevent or stop war, even if it usually is through violent means. The overall message is anything is better than war. Though that opens a whole new can of worms.

I think that one could find all sorts of games where active manipulation is part of the presentation (remember America's Army?), but I also don't see anything particularly virtuous about "passive" versus "active manipulation." If a game shapes how you see the world subconsciously accidentally, or because it's designers have had their world shaped in a similar way, the effect is still that you're a changed person.

I agree that critical consumption is an important thing; I don't think that games are sufficiently mature as a medium to have developed a real wing of critical theory. My issue is not that Call of Duty 9 will finally eliminate the American anti-war movement once and for all, but that the normalization of previously distasteful things will shift the collective consciousness in a bad way. I really do think, for instance, that special forces actions and things like extrajudicial assassinations have been given a pass in modern gaming in a tremendously lazy way; young Americans are more likely to support torture than their parents because of a "by any means necessary" attitude that is common both in games, action movies, and shows like 24. I don't mean to single games out in doing this, but this is a gaming site.

I think messages like you're describing don't actually counter what I'm arguing: I think that "War is hell" is able to live side by side with the fetishism of military equipment and the elimination of too much critical thinking once war has begun. It's explained really well in this short-ish interview: http://www.charlielawing.com/huntemann.pdf. It's by no means anti-game-- it's pro-critical thinking when it comes to the entertainment we consume for hundreds of hours per year.

 

[DrOswald]

Certainly, but my point is that the writer of that statement was actively trying to manipulate you where as video games passively manipulate you. The writer is saying "This is how reality is" when he presents you with his rhetoric, actively trying to change your opinion to match his own. Most games say "This is how a certain fantasy vaguely related to reality is" and do not actively attempt to change your opinion.

My overall opinion is that you can never let your guard down, you can never take any statement anyone makes at face value, you can never play a game or read a book without it effecting you in some way. I just don't think the overall effect of video games is so powerful that we will begin preferring war over peace.

Plus, the message in almost all video games, including the heavy military ones, is "War is bad, but we fight because we have to." Many games revolve around finding a way to prevent or stop war, even if it usually is through violent means. The overall message is anything is better than war. Though that opens a whole new can of worms.

I think that one could find all sorts of games where active manipulation is part of the presentation (remember America's Army?), but I also don't see anything particularly virtuous about "passive" versus "active manipulation." If a game shapes how you see the world subconsciously accidentally, or because it's designers have had their world shaped in a similar way, the effect is still that you're a changed person.

If you reread my original post you will notice that I touched on my opinion that this type of manipulation is not necessarily bad or wrong. This is how people persuade others to their point of view. We need rhetoric to function as a society, it would be unfair to say that this type of manipulation is evil or amoral. It is important, however, to recognize rhetorical manipulation for what it is so we do not get caught up in the emotion of what is being said and we maintain rationality.

I agree that critical consumption is an important thing; I don't think that games are sufficiently mature as a medium to have developed a real wing of critical theory. My issue is not that Call of Duty 9 will finally eliminate the American anti-war movement once and for all, but that the normalization of previously distasteful things will shift the collective consciousness in a bad way. I really do think, for instance, that special forces actions and things like extrajudicial assassinations have been given a pass in modern gaming in a tremendously lazy way; young Americans are more likely to support torture than their parents because of a "by any means necessary" attitude that is common both in games, action movies, and shows like 24. I don't mean to single games out in doing this, but this is a gaming site.

1. A medium is just a method of creation. It does not matter if it is brand new of ten thousand years old, what matters is what is done with the medium. You say video games are not mature enough to have developed a real wing of critical theory. What makes the movie industry more mature than the gaming industry? why is a book a more valid medium to provoke critical thinking than interactive media? Extra Credits gives us 2 excellent examples of how games can provoke critical thinking:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/2545-Narrative-Mechanics
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/1974-Enriching-Lives

You are going to have to come with more to the table than "games are not mature" if you want me to agree that games are not a worthy medium.

2. Why do you say "young Americans are more likely to support torture than their parents," and how do you connect it to violent media? Do you have any evidence at all that this is due to media influence?

I think messages like you're describing don't actually counter what I'm arguing: I think that "War is hell" is able to live side by side with the fetishism of military equipment and the elimination of too much critical thinking once war has begun. It's explained really well in this short-ish interview: http://www.charlielawing.com/huntemann.pdf. It's by no means anti-game-- it's pro-critical thinking when it comes to the entertainment we consume for hundreds of hours per year.

1. Is it so wrong to thing that gun, tanks, battleships, etc. are cool? Why is that bad? After all, that is what everyone means when they say "military fetishism." Are magic and super powers better to obsess over? If so, why?

2. I disagree that games encourage us to avoid critical thinking. I think that in general they encourage critical thinking, even against what is being shown in a positive light in game. How many times have you wanted to kick the protagonist in the teeth for being an idiot? I couldn't finish God of War III because I was so disgusted at Kratos for being such a whiny violent jerk. I was forced to ask myself "do I want to commit these acts of senseless violence, even in a fantasy setting?" I answered no and turned off the game. As an interactive medium, games ask us questions that we must answer if we are to play the game.

Finally, to answer your question in OP: As gamers, do you ever feel that you're being manipulated by games to adopt a certain mindset when it comes to relating to the world?

Yes, but the effects are minimal because the interactive nature of games promote critical thinking through active participation over passive observance.

(sorry for wall of text, I find this discussion really interesting.)

 

[Katana314]

News flash: Media, even fictional media, changes people's opinions in minute ways.

Meet me under the bridge at midnight to start burning all books, CDs, video games, movies, news articles, opinion pieces, discussions, paintings, and pornography.

I agree that the overpresence of violence and militarism in video games is a problem; but not one that requires any sort of direct intervention. If we were to change our theme, the main reason would be to have more variety in our game-playing.

 

[MaxwellDB]

I'm almost bummed that this is my last response for the day and it has to be short. :\

1. I'm all for responsibility in the use of propaganda.
2. I don't think that games are inherently flawed as a medium; I do think that there are not the same sort of mechanisms for their critical examination as there are for, say, books. Most of games journalism is veiled advertising at best, and there's little academic discussion about them.
3. I say that because it's true. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...percent-of-young-people-support-torture.html# I have absolutely no data to back it up; I just find it to be a compelling thought that I need to investigate further.
4. In my ideal world, there would be no violence. I therefore have a kind of negative opinion of real world tools of violence. I think there's a fundamental distinction regardless of the genre: what sort of need is it attempting to fulfill? Feeling special or unique? Feeling in control? Forgetting who you are? I think that military games are more often about domination than anything else.

Argh. So close to out of time.

5. I enjoy your GoWIII reaction-- I guess it's a gut feeling that most of the audience would play through.

 

[Tsaba]

Sooooo, I feel I need to post this:
If that's the case then there is a form of manipulation everywhere, school, games, tv, news, and so on.

 

[MaxwellDB]

This thread really isn't about the tired "video games cause kids to kill" stuff, though. It's about the issue of militarism in games, which I think isn't an oft-addressed thing.

It's certainly present in other media, particularly (action) movies, but there's a big volume of releases that are either neutral to or against militarism that counter that volume. The top grossing movie of 2010 was Toy Story 3; the top selling game of 2010 was Black Ops, meanwhile. I think part of the driver for the difference in development and consumption habits-- particularly when it comes to "hardcore" gamers-- is a continuation and maybe refinement of ideologies and schemata promoted by a similar movement with movies and TV in the time before the mass appeal of games.

Setting up how someone reacts to the ideas or situations they're presented with is important, no? It's how, for example, a big chunk of the posts in this thread reacted as if I was coming at this issue as an anti-game, anti-violence sort of person, rather than as someone who wanted to question something I think is an issue in some of the most popular game titles.

e: I actually found a thesis that talks about a lot of this at length if anyone who sees this is interested: http://etheses.nottingham.ac.uk/672/1/Matt_Thomson_PhD_Thesis_Pdf.pdf

 

[razelas]

This thread really isn't about the tired "video games cause kids to kill" stuff, though. It's about the issue of militarism in games, which I think isn't an oft-addressed thing.

Tbh, it's not a particularly important or even relevant issue at this point in time. If the political/social atmosphere was similar to the nationalistic fervor like in World War 1, then there might be be some cause for alarm. However, the current climate is that economic prestige takes precedence over military glory, at least in the US.

You could argue that the amount of money the US spends on military is a rather frightening indicator of militarism, but in reality that is just a symptom of the military industrial complex and privatization of the US military, which is again basically economic. Even the recruitment ads for the Army don't appeal entirely to patriotism [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5J1yuaT7RMk&feature=related], but rather to personal economic gain.

There's just no place in today's world for warmongering.

 

[maturin]

Militarism in gaming is really just the icing on the cake, I think. Most of our entertainment has been Pentagon PR for years now.

I think games are a bit different because of how involved in the experience you have to be. So you have gamers developing a large amount of familiarity and military literacy, even if it's just some CoD douchebags who can name a couple weapon attachments. I'm one of those pinko peacenik types, so far as most military enthusiasts are concerned, yet I've somehow amassed a rather scary amount of useless knowledge about weapons systems and technology from playing Arma 2.

Tbh, it's not a particularly important or even relevant issue at this point in time. If the political/social atmosphere was similar to the nationalistic fervor like in World War 1, then there might be be some cause for alarm. However, the current climate is that economic prestige takes precedence over military glory, at least in the US.

You could argue that the amount of money the US spends on military is a rather frightening indicator of militarism, but in reality that is just a symptom of the military industrial complex and privatization of the US military, which is again basically economic. Even the recruitment ads for the Army don't appeal entirely to patriotism, but rather to personal economic gain.

There's just no place in today's world for warmongering.

Interesting point. But there is still an enormous appetite among the population for using that vast arsenal on some evildoer for some righteous cause. The military fetishism in this country is completely divorced from the idea of killing. The horrors of war and abuses of conflict is something that happens to other militaries. And we seem to have completely swallowed the euphemisms and excuses of collateral damage.

Edit: And most people will be quite up front about how entertainment and information media can shape a society's opinions and values. Until you bring up games in the presence of a gamer, of course. Some self-awareness is in order, people. FFS, I'm learning to speak Russian right now because of Half-Life 2.

 

[Zhukov]

I wouldn't call it a "problem" exactly.

But I would certainly like to see less of it.

Partly because I'm really sick of all the "Whoo! US Army Rulez! America! Fuck yeah!" And Partly because I would like to see some games that address violence and/or war in a more mature way than the usual "Ohh, explosions! War is so totally awesome!"

That sort of stuff has it's place, sure, but I'd like to see something different every now and again.

 

[MaxwellDB]

Tbh, it's not a particularly important or even relevant issue at this point in time. If the political/social atmosphere was similar to the nationalistic fervor like in World War 1, then there might be be some cause for alarm. However, the current climate is that economic prestige takes precedence over military glory, at least in the US.

You could argue that the amount of money the US spends on military is a rather frightening indicator of militarism, but in reality that is just a symptom of the military industrial complex and privatization of the US military, which is again basically economic. Even the recruitment ads for the Army don't appeal entirely to patriotism [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5J1yuaT7RMk&feature=related], but rather to personal economic gain.

There's just no place in today's world for warmongering.

We spend more on our military than the rest of the world combined. There were moments in the most recent GOP debate where the idea of civilian control of the military was intimated to be either wrong or only a formality. The United States is currently involved in military actions in a number of countries-- drones count, regardless of how 'clean' they might appear. Militarism in entertainment media is still a very big thing, as is militarism in society in general.

You're also conflating militarism with patriotism. It's possible to be an anti-militarist patriot. It's also possible to be rather selfish, but to also have been conditioned by the military-entertainment complex to believe that a state spending a certain amount of money on its military or using its armed forces in a certain way is acceptable when previously you might have had a different opinion.

The ad you posted relies on a whole set of ideas that are taken at face value now because of decades of (primarily) propaganda-- some of which might be true, some of which might be false. For example, why do people think that serving a term with the army will make them "strong?" The ad implies the acquisition of both physical and mental strength as a benefit of service. It doesn't really need to explain how this will happen, because it's expected that the viewer will make the connection. Is that fair? Why or why not?

What about the word "honor?" What part of the concept that you have of honor is formed from personal experience? What about media exposure-- and, of what, what from playing video games? Is serving in the armed forces an honorable thing, no matter the circumstances? For example, if one's country were to enter into an immoral, illegal war, would the honorable thing for a soldier to do be to desert? Would it be to honor his commitment no matter what? Would the best thing to do be to have never joined in the first place, to avoid taking part in that sort of quagmire? That's all stuff on which personal opinions are shaped by a combination of personal experience and media exposure.

I wouldn't call it a "problem" exactly.

But I would certainly like to see less of it.

Partly because I'm really sick of all the "Whoo! US Army Rulez! America! Fuck yeah!" And Partly because I would like to see some games that address violence and/or war in a more mature way than the usual "Ohh, explosions! War is so totally awesome!"

That sort of stuff has it's place, sure, but I'd like to see something different every now and again.

If nothing else, I think this is something most people could agree on. Part of my issue with militarism in games is that the emphasis on fast-paced combat and cool army toys minimizes what could make for better story-telling. To derail from national armed forces for a moment, I'd like to see a SWAT 5. I think the series is fun. Do I think that those games are simplistic in how they treat paramilitary police actions? Absolutely-- I'd love to have, for instance, a level where the player is placed into a raid that's nontraditional: a wrong address, for example, and the player is forced to negotiate the scenario using a mindset that's different from a typical barricaded criminal situation. Instead of doing awful stuff, [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbwSwvUaRqc&feature=related] you find a peaceful, positive way out of the level by actually *thinking* about the ramifications of your actions for a change.

Nope. I have no trouble seperating real-life violence from video game violence. video game violence carries no penalties, and when was the last time you saw a Deathclaw roaming your back yard?

You're getting the topic wrong. I think that Fallout's kind of progressive at times, violence notwithstanding.

 

[MaxwellDB]

You're getting the topic wrong. I think that Fallout's kind of progressive at times, violence notwithstanding.

I play plenty of Call of Battlefield: Source too. Besides, does it really matter what game it is? Violence is violence, and I'm pretty god damn violent when deathclaw are on the prowl.


Just as an example, I've never nuked anyone in Call of Duty. I've never bludgeoned anyone to death with a sledgehammer in Battlefield: BC2. I've never stuffed a grenade in their back pocket, pulled a pin and laughed in CSS.

But none of that addresses the influence of militarism [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militarism] on games, and the sort of feedback loop effect that has on society. Violence in media in general is a different concern.

 

[SyphonX]

Just a question, to everybody who says it's not a problem, or they don't see a correlation, etc.

If you play games like CoD or other "war arcade" games, do you also support the war(s) and/or the military?

Because I don't recall many CoD fanatics who don't openly support war or the military, and who don't openly celebrate or make fun of assassinations (like OBL).

 

[Staskala]

I think it would be awfully short-sighted to assume that there isn't a single person who joined an army because of war-glorifying video games and movies, but that's far from the norm.
And even then, real war, even real training, is entirely different from anything you have ever experienced in fiction (certain realistic stories not withstanding).
In short: Even the best CoD player would shit his pants if he ever entered a real war scene unprepared.
Killing NPCs or PCs is also entirely different from killing real, living humans.

Which nicely leads to the topic of desensitization:
Soldiers get desensitized by excessive drilling and "brainwashing" (for lack of a better word), whether or not they have a background with video games should hardly have any effect.
It's what the military has been doing for centuries before anyone ever thought of war simulation as a fun past-time, after all.

As for desensitization of the "normal" population, I doubt that video games accomplish more in that regard than what the media is already doing.

On the other hand, games like CoD, Homefront and related series hardly contribute to a positive international climate and often encourage negative stereotypes and fear-mongering; although it is debatable just how big their effect actually is.

 

[SyphonX]

Yea, I'd say the media does a bang-up job on desensitizing entire populations with war. Far more than what a video game could do. It's not really about desensitization, it's more about creating a veil over the average person, if you want to take it that far. Any "normal" person would experience irreversible psychological trauma if they ever went to a warzone, or if they ever saw people killed en masse.

So like you said, video games and movies won't "harden" people to war, but it will certainly shut them up and make them less critical of it. A lot of people still call combatants in Afghanistan or Iraq "terrorists", for instance. Because they are not critical of it, or do not learn more about it, because they receive their information in neat little sanitized packages on TV and in movies.

The media and the executive branch are far better at it though.

'Kinetic Military Action with Humanitarian Bombing Operations' anyone?

 

[MaxwellDB]

You're getting the topic wrong. I think that Fallout's kind of progressive at times, violence notwithstanding.

I play plenty of Call of Battlefield: Source too. Besides, does it really matter what game it is? Violence is violence, and I'm pretty god damn violent when deathclaw are on the prowl.


Just as an example, I've never nuked anyone in Call of Duty. I've never bludgeoned anyone to death with a sledgehammer in Battlefield: BC2. I've never stuffed a grenade in their back pocket, pulled a pin and laughed in CSS.

But none of that addresses the influence of militarism [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militarism] on games, and the sort of feedback loop effect that has on society. Violence in media in general is a different concern.

...They're no closer to actual military action. War games are about as far removed from anything remotely realistic as you can get and still be able to call them war games. The only thing tying them to any world powers is the names, locations and skins. Honestly New Vegas is closer to real warfare than Call of Duty has been as of late..I mean really, when was the last time someone stabbed in the heart managed to pull the knife out and stay alive long enough to accurately throw it and get a knife headshot?! That shit just does not happen in real war.

But those things don't really have much to do with militarism. They're violent media. This militarism discussion isn't as much to do with the visceral experience of war as it is how the handling of military ideas and operations are presented in games. What effect does that have on people who play lots of games? Are they apt to see something like unilateral military actions as more or less just than someone who avoids that sort of media, for example?

I've linked a few things in this thread that discuss that. It's not just the way violence is handled.

 

[SyphonX]

Get on Xbox Live, and try to ask the average CoD or Halo player what they think of the middle-east, and you'll get your philosophical discussion summarized in about 5 minutes.

They all happen to be keen supporters of their personal state's overseas agenda, and that is remarkable in the information age, where anyone with a non-washed brain, should be easily disgusted on their first digestion of information, should they choose to look for it. On their second dose of information, they come out of it with this strange ability called "having opinions", then people use this newfound ability. It's amazing.

Like media, most mainstream military games follow the "black & white", world view system, and this is reflected on their playerbase.