Slashdot Mirror


The Political Games Surrounding Video Games

Rayonic writes "We all know the issue surrounding those who want to ban violent games, but a TechCentralStation editorial asks - can playing war games influence your political sensibilities? The media, for instance, are usually very ignorant of what goes on during military maneuvers. But a few days of playing Ghost Recon or America's Army might make you more knowledgeable than the average reporter (or even lawmaker), as the writer argues that 'the spread of military knowledge via wargaming might lead to political changes in the way war is perceived by Americans'."

4 of 95 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Article is a troll against Democrats by the+Luddite · · Score: 2, Informative

    Strong point. I am also a Democrat that plays games of that nature from time to time and I would never support any attempts to limit what types of games people can play. This type of yellow journalism is a driving force in the political world because many sheeple blindly believe what they read without wondering if it is supported by fact or opinion.

  2. Re:I think you missed the point of the article... by *weasel · · Score: 3, Informative

    The context of that quote was at the strategic or tactical level.

    No-one suggested these games educate their players on the grotesqueries of war.

    It was the author's assumption that military video games provide a reasonable facsimile to actual military endeavors on the tactical levels. The US Armed Forces agrees with that to the tune of repeated lip service and continued funding into game-like tactical training tools, which increasingly find a civilian market.

    The games are thereby educating gamers, not to become soliders, but to understand maneuvers, the inevitability of accidents, and the scope of battle beyond typical war reporting.

    These games aren't going to prepare people to deal with the emotions of seeing friendly fire or civilian casualties. These games will simply prepare gamers to expect friendly fire and civilian casualties as being an inavoidable byproduct of war, and will allow them to understand how soldiers can make such tragic mistakes in the first place.

    The article is talking about wargamers political reactions to actual war reporting here. Not their abilities to personally function during actual war.

    --
    // "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
  3. Re:OffTopic: Cobra isn't much for combat situation by Zeriel · · Score: 2, Informative

    The Cobra has one application in a dogfight, but it's damn useful:

    It's a highly effective way (at least in the sims) of getting some dude who's in your rear cone off your ass--and in fact, if you time it right, a cobra will essentially reverse your positions in that situation. I.e., you're now on the other guy's tail and in missile-firing position. Even if you can't get behind them, a Cobra puts your engine exhaust facing away from your tail and thereby reduces the chance of a successful IR shot.

    Speed isn't life with 4th and 5th generation fighters--maneuverability and altitude are.

    Your father probably flew early F-15s or F-4s, I'd bet.

    --
    "America has done some terrible things. But I know that Americans don't cheer when innocents die." -Dave Barry
  4. OK, but now read it again with _this_ in mind by slavin · · Score: 2, Informative
    TechCentralStation isn't just some news and opinion website -- it's the publishing arm of a DC lobbying and PR group: DCI.

    Quoted from this article in Washington Monthly:

    "[TechCentral Station] doesn't just act like a lobbying shop. It's actually published by one--the DCI Group, a prominent Washington "public affairs" firm specializing in P.R., lobbying, and so-called "Astroturf" organizing, generally on behalf of corporations, GOP politicians, and the occasional Third-World despot. The two organizations share most of the same owners, some staff, and even the same suite of offices in downtown Washington, a block off K Street..."

    You can see the money (as Feather Hodges Larson Synhorst) that they're getting directly from the Republican party here. Around US $7MM.

    Looking through their published client list, I can't see exactly whose interests are being directly expressed there. But whether you agree or disagree with the article, know that those words have been paid for by someone specific.

    Any guesses as to who? Bueller?