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?"
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.
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?
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.
Suppose the son of man with Alzheimer's Disease is strongly against stem cell research. Suppose, then, that by reading a medical journal he learns that stem cell research may lead to a cure for the desease. What is the liklihood that the medical journal has changed his beliefs with regards to stem cell research?
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?
You don't think exposure to material invokes a mental adjustment? Do we learn nothing from communication then? Novels, texts, plays, film, music, poetry -- these don't invoke mental adjustment?
I'd agree that exposure to material doesn't invoke a subconscious adjustment (short of brainwashing, subliminal messaging, etc) - but that isn't quite what you said.
The violence argument has always set out to suggest that the behavioral adjustment is subconscious and automatic. The political leaning argument (presented here for the first time that I've read) specifically denotes the necessary step of consciously applying knowledge gained from exposure to material to adjust views and behavior.
The passive/active divide makes them quite distinct imo.
// "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
I think YOU'RE missing the point, really. We're not discussing the idea that military games INDOCTRINATE (i.e., we're not on the same slope that says violent games lead to violence), we're saying that wargames EDUCATE on how battles are. No change in values is implied, just a change in how much you know.
"America has done some terrible things. But I know that Americans don't cheer when innocents die." -Dave Barry
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
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.
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?