Jenkins On War And Videogames

Thanks to the MIT Technology Review for their Henry Jenkins-authored opinion piece on the use of recent wars in videogames. Jenkins, an MIT professor and much-interviewed game-related academic, argues: "If the idea of turning war into games is so intrinsically offensive, why has there been so little public outrage over the use of playing cards as a way of representing the search for and capture of Iraqi leaders?" He concludes: "Given the divisiveness of current sentiments toward the war and the newness of games as a rhetorical medium, it is hardly surprising that these games offend some and disappoint others."

Comments

Iraqi leader playing cards

[PeteyG]

why has there been so little public outrage over the use of playing cards as a way of representing the search for and capture of Iraqi leaders?

Because the whole idea behind the deck of cards... was that US troops would carry them around, play games with them in their spare time, and memorize the faces of these guys so that if they happened to spot them... they could nab them.

The media really latched onto the idea, but the original purpose was to promote awareness among the troops of what they should be on the lookout for. NOT some crazy Right-wing warmongering wargasmic ploy. THAT is why there has been no public outrage.

Agree with most of the other stuff he says, though.

games and war

[HughsOnFirst]

"Given the divisiveness of current sentiments toward the war and the newness of games as a rhetorical medium,

Gee, isn't the relationship between games and war only a few thousand years old? Chess and playing cards originated in India and are both supposed to be modeled on war.

Re:games and war

[bj8rn]

It's not only games like Chess. War has always been a kind of game in itself, with its own rules and code of honour. Samurais and the knights in medieval Europe are probably the best known examples of this, but war was a game already in very archaic cultures (read "Homo Ludens" by Johan Huizinga, for example) and, in a way, still is. The code of honour and ideals are still there -- hasn't Jessica Lynch been turned into a mythical hero just the same as Achilles or Cid or "Red Baron" von Richthofen?

Re:Is this guy the new John Katz?

[Doctor_Jest]

I don't understand why any game, "realistic" (no game can be realistic unless you feel the bullets hit you) or abstract can, or needs to, give us an impression of what a battlefield is like.

Make no bones about it, war is not pretty. I just think Jenkins needs to lay off moralizing a genre that is not meant to teach but to entertain. Games are supposed to be fun, escapist fantasy. The fact that the game deals with a relatively new war is irrelevant. The "artists" who made such things like "Velvet Strike" and the other mentioned in the article are doing nothing but making themselves look humorless and intolerant. It's a game. It's not a training tool (even "America's Army" isn't a training tool.... despite what people may think. It's a "Top Gun" for the FPS generation. In other words: a recruiting tool.) Anyone who thought "Top Gun" reflected actual military life was sorely disappointed after enlisting. The same holds true for people who enlist solely after playing America's Army. :)

Games do not shape my opinions about war, and they never have. Just like "Sands of Iwo Jima" doesn't shape my view of WWII soldiers, I do not look to a game for explanation of world events or political opinion. I think Jenkins reads too much into a game. Moral consequences? I don't get it. It's just a game. The fact that it isn't a bunch of X's and O's (or hex maps) doesn't change the fact that it's JUST a game.

Jenkins' last quote is very telling of his limited view. "Can you really make a kickass game about what has been a less than kickass war?" Yes, you can. Just keep your political opinions in the real world. Games are not the real world. Despite what marketeers and game opponents want you to think.

Jenkins' mention of the following is puzzling as well:

**
"videogame designer and theorist Gonzala Frasca argued that today's games are an inappropriate medium for dealing with such serious matters. He cites two reasons: first, video games focus on winning and losing but not the deeper ethical implications of modern warfare."
**

So? These games are not, will not, have not, and never will be a way of dealing with the matters he mentions.

Repeat after me:

"It's just a game." If someone begins to think otherwise, they need to turn off the console and go outside for a while.