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'."
Video games that people play tend to be a product of their leanings, not the other way around. People who like violence will play violent video games, and fantasy nerds (myself included) will play RPGs. In this case, people who play war games probably like strategy and tactics.
Chalk this one up to the media looking for scapegoats and excuses to explain personal behaviours yet again.
Substitute books, movies or television for games and you'll see how ridiculous the argument is.
Does this mean that I will begin to believe that all wars are fought by 13 year olds?
After year of playing war based video games, I like Bush because he pwned teh Iraqi's. Hussein is teh Suxx0r!
Actually it sounds like this article is suggesting that realistic military games actually educate the gamers on what warfare is like.
The thrust of the article is that political second-guessing of military strategy and reaction would be easily identifiable by such educated gamers. Educated gamers know that sending more troops to Iraq would not necessarily mitigate the dangers of roadside bombs and ambushes -- it'd simply present more targets. Also, they'd be more willing to judge the failure or success of a military engagement on the broader scope, and not just make a gut decision influenced by the most recently reported good or bad news.
I don't know that such education could change a gamer's personal politics but, like any education, it certainly increases the accuracy of their BS detector.
// "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
"Kill the lawyers!"
"Derp de derp."
You can speculate all you want...
but shouldn't we ask an expert, like matthew broderick?
"It'll destroy you if you try to make it mean anything to anyone but yourself." - Henry Rollins
I remember back when that whole Elian Gonzalez debacle was busy...well, debacling. When the Feds finally came took him away at gunpoint, I recall looking at the infamous picture and saying "Hey, I recognize that gun from CounterStrike. That's an MP5 ! Quick, flashbang that sucker and cap him with your Desert Eagle !!!"
Joking aside, games can be a source of factual information. Just like any other form of media. And any new information is going to influence your outlook on everything. Assuming you're actually capable of seperating the fact from the fiction, this is a good thing.
--LordPixie
The article suggested that war games might make people more cognizant of the confusion and difficulty of warfare. That's possible, but judging from conversations and message exchanges I've had with other gamers, I think such games have another influence-- to give people an unrealistically _favorable_ attitude towards war and technology.
Here's what I mean. Many games strive for "realism." Yet the equipment in many games skirts the edge of science-fiction, and the environments are also structured for game enjoyment rather than complete realism. Many gamers I've encountered seem to think that military hardware is at least the equal of the cool-tech stuff they see in the games (and some believe that the un-classified stuff is even more perfect).
And this may lead people to believe that the military is more effective and more efficient than it actually is in real life-- thus encouraging an acceptance of military solutions to political problems.
This is just as much a liberal as it is a right-wing issue: remember, Vietnam was waged by liberals who believed in things like saturation bombing, and running the war like a corporation.
So the opinion is that by simply playing a GAME we are more informed than the AVERAGE guy walking the streets about war. God help us all.
You certainly can't understand friendly fire incidents until you have played a FPS online and waited for your team's medics to actual give you some health.
Back in the day, I played Falcon 1 on my 8088, and later F-117A on my 386. Both games came with very full manuals detailing the planes and their respective armaments. I'm no military nut, but I loved these games for the manuals as much as the game play. To this day, I remember the range of an AIM-120 AMRAAM missile is 21 miles, and a Sidewinder is 7 miles (but more maneuverable).
:-)
One day, A friend of mine in High School was trying to show-up his knowledge by quizzing me about military armaments. It was fun catching him off guard by answering him correctly and talking about how an F-16 could do an Immelmann while a mig-29 could not.
Anyhow, that's my real-world example of legitimate learning via military video games. Now, if you don't mind, I'm going to return to shooting a guy wearing hoverboots with my BFG10000. Okay, maybe ALL military games aren't realistic
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.
Maybe you and Joe Liberman should have a talk...
Oy, I'm a democrat and I loathe Lieberman and have no idea why Gore chose him as his running mate. Had he chosen Kerry or Edwards maybe the whole election would have been different.
My argument is more against the concept that exposure to material (A) invokes mental adjustment (B). My take is that outside cases of brainwashing, exposure to any sort of media is unlikely to change one's personal beliefs and/or leanings, and that any argument stating otherwise is pretty much baseless on it's face.
Using the violence argument might have muddied the waters a bit.
I think it's a little bit scary that many people of my generation probably know more about the Vietnam war from Battlefield Vietnam loading screens than they retained from their studies at school. While the information contained there is relatively unbiased, they could just as well inserted politically motivated propaganda there. This would have easily slipped below the radars of the historians who keep such published material from straying too far away from reality.
The meek shall inherit the earth, in 3 by 6 plots. - Lazerus Long
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'."
A few points about this.
1. Games can also spread military disinformation. For example an AK in CS might have bad recoil, but the recoil isn't as bad as an AK in real life. I actually asked a friend in the military about this and he said the only real way to fire an AK accurately is to lay down with it. A far cry (no pun intended) from CS where an AK fires accurately for the first 1 to 2 shots no matter what. Of course, this doesn't make for good CS gameplay so realism is thrown away in the name of gameplay. Which is the way it should be, with the exception of America's Army, video games are ment to be fun first, realistic simulators second (or third, or not all).
2. I think if anything games might desensitize people to war, or make war seem more glamourous. Sure you might play a war game where you storm a hut in Iraq full of insurgance but do you see the innocent people in the background who are hurt or killed? Maybe you work as a sniper, medic, or soldier in the game, but do you ever spend time rebuilding the enemies schools or water supplies? Do you ever face situations like the US soldiers do where most of the time you aren't shooting anything, but anyone can be a terrorist and if shoot the wrong person you don't just 'lose a frag', you might end up in a military court?
War simulators IMO do not simulate the wars of today. They may be accurate portrayals of WWI and WWII where all the soldiers had to do was find and kill the bad guys which was anyone that was part of the "bad" country you are at war with. Wars nowadays almost always involve "nation building" which doesn't translate into fun video games.
War games are just another genre of games. They are fun, but I wouldn't expect them to 'educate' the American public about war any more than I would expect the American public to become better drivers from playing Mario Kart or learn martial arts from playing Mortal Kombat.
Remember Balance of Power? There's a REAL war game for ya.
A Cobra maneuver is only impressive in an airshow. In a true combat situation it's beyond useless. While it looks extremely cool, it basically leaves you all but stationary. This is an rediculously vulnerable position to be in for a dogfight.
As my USAF father kept telling me, "Airspeed is life".
--LordPixie
I am a Democrat, and I enjoy violent video games as much as the next guy. In fact, if I had been asked to guess, I would have guessed the Republicans were against it.
:)
Republicans who haven't been hijacked by the religious right wouldn't care what video games you play either. Real republicans are for less government involvments, it's too bad there haven't been any real republicans in my lifetime.
I'm sure congressmen and senators on both sides of the political platform are against violence in videogames. Why? It's a sexy issue to draw women voters to them. "Look we are protecting the CHILDREN!". They should focus their attention on eliminating violence/bullying in schools if they really want to protect children. Do they really think that colombine was cause by doom, or because two kids were teased until they couldn't take it anymore?
Tech central is just a notch above mozillaquest.
Photos.
> Do they really think that colombine was cause by doom, or because two kids were teased until they couldn't take it anymore?
They might really think it was a video game's fault - being able to blame an abstract concept, instead of a singular person or couple, is much easier. If a politician blames the *parents of bullies*, he finds himself on dubious ground with his constituents who (potentially) have bully children.
On the other hand, how many congress critters have to worry about a significant portion of their constituents being part of the gaming industry?
-lw
Mods: Disagreeing with me != my post Offtopic / Flamebait.
World without hate or war, invaded. Tragic?
I think what we are talking about here is propaganda. http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/entertainmen t_columnists/article/0,1299,DRMN_84_2844688,00.htm l
Quotes an MIT professor he spells it out.
No, the problem is the republican party is really a coalition of 4 different political groups.
1)The religious right, aka the holly rollers. They want to tell everyone how to live their lives and believe they have the direct line to god. They're a minority, but they're loud and the party panders to them, since they'd go dem in a second if the democrats would further their religion. Ashcroft is a member of this group.
2)The rich, aka the selfish pricks. These are people with large amounts of money/power who care only about amassing more money/power. This is the smallest group in real numbers, but they run the party. This is a bad thing, since what thye want doesn't really mesh with what 90% of republicans want. Bush is a member of this group
3)Libertarians. Probably about the same size as #1, but not pandered to because theres no way they'd go to the left. Pretty much non-factors due to the 2 party system.
4)The status quoers. They think America is a pretty good place, and don't want major change, either from fear it would fuck things up, from lack of vision, or due to just not caring about politics. This is the largest group, but has 0 political power since they don't want anything. Elections for republicans basicly require them to ocnvince these people to go to the polls.
Most republicans want someone from group 4- someone who just stays the course and does pretty much nothing for 4 years. And admittedly, there's worse ways to spend a presidency. Unfortunately, group 2 firmly controls the republican party, because 4 is too non-political. And since 2 has the money, it'll remain in control unless the party breaks up. Which can't happen in America due to the 2 party system. Welcome to America, get used to the assholes the republicans put out as candidates, it isn't going to change.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
I hate #2 (rich selfish pricks). Who do they think they are, working hard and saving their money?!? After sitting on my ass the first 25 years of my life (good pot, dropped out of collage) I need someone to take care of me. If they won't give us lazy folks their money we should take it! ...If only taking money was easier... Maybe someone can do that for me too. Where's the government when you need it?
- Lazy Commie
PS: If you're reading this Michael Moore, I'm your biggest fan!!!
Games are still a form of communication/media. Yeah you still have to push buttons and DO things (unless, y'know, you're playing MGS 2...) but you're still taking in information.
And if you can be informed by passive media, then why not interactive media?
The bigger question still to be discovered.... Is interactive media a good way to impart emotional states upon the user? Can it be as expressive as passive art or does the interactivity "get in the way" and it would've been better just to have done it passivly to begin with?
Ok.. Maybe I'm crazy here, but that last sentance of the article:
::shrug:: maybe they do, maybe they don't. He'd've had a bit more credibility with me if he'd just left out that last sentance. But I note that if I wanted an opinion leader, he would have to give a better pedigree than "This one time, when i was playing (Insert Combat Sim Here)..." /Laura
""Were we right? You can judge for yourself. But I note that all the anti-videogame legislators mentioned in the Wired News story are Democrats. . . ""
seems to be implying that the anti-videogame democrats dislike them, not from some misguided belief that if I play combat sims I'll decide to gather a huge stack of weapons and go on a rampage, but because if I play wargames, I might be able to see through the Great Liberal Media Conspiracy to Turn People Against War.
That seems to be the dumbest idea I've ever heard. It's contributing to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity. These guys don't like video games because they think they have to Protect the Children! And they're backed by people who think they know better how to raise other people kids than their parents.
Likewise, I don't need some great liberal conspiracy to tell me war sucks and that innocent people die due to mistakes. Nor do I need some video game to teach me that under fire, a soldier is not guaranteed to make the best decision, or that winning or losing one battle doesn't determine a war (usually).
As for his suggestion that combat sims make us better informed, politically.
The fact that the game always forces the enemy side to be terrorists should be enough reason to ban this game.
I can understand American Army vs. American Army from beginning to end. That's fine. WTF kind of properganda is that to make the enemy terrorists automatically. Boycott it. That's like making all enemies in Doom III republicans.
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
It is a special maneuver that is designed for this purpose only. Experienced pilots will know how to deal with it, but fresh recruits can be nailed by such a maneuver. There were even rumours that an experienced combat pilor was caught by suprise with the Cobra when it was used for the first time.
Speed as well as velocity can be measured in one of two ways:
1. By how much "ground distance" is travelled (absolute speed)
2. By how much distance changed from a moving point, such as yourself (relative speed.)
In the case of tailing an aircraft, the relative speed is effectivly zero. As soon as Cobra gets engaged, the relative speed increases as the target slows down (but decrases for anti-air batteries or aircraft on anther approach vector.)
Er.. the animated series Joe from the mid-80's.
I could see a "blue army/red army" take on it though. But I have no problem with generic "terrorists" anymore than I had problems playing Cops and Robbers and Cowboys and Indians when I was a kid.
WTF kind of planning is that? How can anyone reasonably expect the soldiers to give their personal best when they can't even restore a saved game after getting shot by an enemy soldier? This was definitely a war that was rushed to market. Perhaps we should wait for the first patch to come out before continuing to pursue the war.
One of the two Columbine kids had a severe mental disorder, the other was just a follower. Being teased didn't have as much to do w/ it as we'd like to believe. There are plenty of books on the subject, all scary because we should have seen it coming a long way off...
But also definitely not caused by video games.
[o]_O
What I learned from playing Ogre Battle 64 is that war is wrong and my choices have consequences that will come back to skull fuck me when I least expect it. I also learned that if your superiors order you to kill an unarmed man, you have every right to disobey that order... because, hey, you gotta follow your heart.
[o]_O
You kind of missed the whole point of number two. MOST of these people also sat on their asses for the first 30 years of their lives, dropped out of school and smoked pot (sound like any president that you know?). The difference is that they come from "old money" and they hold all the power, lots of the money, and like exclusivity. Ever wonder why Bill Gates isn't a bigger player on the political scene? His money is too new. He hasn't had the time to come up with expansive family ties (think Bush, and all of his jobs being given to him by "friends" of the family). If you are sitting there making 250,000 a year, you are NOT in #2. If you are making 250,000 a day, you might be, but only if your grandfather, and preferably your great-great grandfather did too.
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.
Even if a Cobra maneuver is successful in getting someone off your ass, there's (usually) his wingman to worry about. So if he doesn't take the opportunity to light up your now immoble behind, his buddy probably will. And is it truely that effecting at lowering your IR signature ? Once you're perpindicular to your direction of travel, all that hot air winds up just swirling about you in a big cloud. That could provide just as good a target. And either way, you've got a LOT bigger radar signature to worry about.
Speed isn't life with 4th and 5th generation fighters--maneuverability and altitude are.
That I won't argue. However, I think my father would have had a much harder time working that sort of mantra into daily life. Probably would have made his teachings on how to drive a car/snowmobile a lot easier, though. Saved cash on all the speeding tickets to boot.
--LordPixie
I don't know that such education could change a gamer's personal politics but, like any education, it certainly increases the accuracy of their BS detector.
I think you nailed it at the end there. Playing Civilization makes a person neither a general, nor a historian. But as you say, if a journo spouts a half baked, trendy meme on a topic they know little about (More troops=necessarily better/quicker/safer outcome), the smell of falsehood is readily apparant to anyone who knows better from experiences they've had playing Civ, or Gettysburg.
Essentially, I just think that journalists are inclined to think that people will believe anything you shovel towards them, whatever the media, because journalists happen to be holding a shovel. And so they lament this other form of media, which occasionally contradicts them, or, dare I say, fosters active thought, rather than passive acceptance.
"Inattention makes clowns of us all" -Bean
Quoted from this article in Washington Monthly:
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?
I don't follow the argument. How does banning the sale of this game to minors in any way infringe first amendment rights. So an adult has to buy them the game. This is bad how exactly? Minors aren't generally allowed to buy porn magazines, but nobody argues that this is restricting the right of the porn industry to educate young people on sex.
Not to be rude or anything, but as a fellow flight sim junkie, I would like to point out a few inaccuracies in your post.
1. Missle range is entirely variable, depending on many factors, such as: range to target, launching-aircraft airspeed and altitude, target airspeed and altitude, aspect angle, closure rate, and what evasive maneuvers the target takes after launch. Not to mention IR or radar signature. That's why in modern aircraft, such as the F-16, there is a dynamic launch zone on the HUD that varies with all of those factors, except the last one, which is, of course, unknown.
2. Do you know what an Immelmann is? It is a basic maneuver in which the pilot pulls up 90 degrees, rolls to the direction he wants to end up on, pulls down 90 degrees until he's pointing at the horizon, and then rolls level. Of course, in a dogfight, it won't be so neat and clean and the same every time. Anyway, you could do an Immelmann in a Skyhawk if you had enough airspeed. It starts out just like a loop. A MiG-29 can certainly perform one.
"Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
Well, I'd argue that A) if there's a wingman floating around that isn't too busy with YOUR wingman, don't do a Cobra, B) it makes your IR signature less than if someone was staring at your tailpipe, C) I've never experienced (in sims) radar mattering much once everyone's in IR missile range, radar-homing missiles tend to be long-range with a long boost phase that makes them inaccurate at short range.
Finally, D) why the heck are we discussing this? Last I checked, there were exactly two fighters capable of performing a true Cobra, neither of which are frontline. (US/German X-35 research craft, Russian Su-37 ATF)
"America has done some terrible things. But I know that Americans don't cheer when innocents die." -Dave Barry