Slashdot Mirror
Iraq War Veterans Protest America's Army Title
Via GamePolitics, a story reported by the St. Lois Post-Dispatch of frustrated war veterans protesting America's Army . Roughly 100 veterans of the Iraq war marched near an elaborate demonstration of the military-funded game, outside of an expo center in Missouri. Their shouts of 'war is not a game' must have contrasted sharply with the elaborate simulator the Army had set up to publicize their (already very popular) FPS title.
Wars we are currently fighting are not a game.
Medal of Honor? Bring it.
Wolfenstein, too. I'm not gonna roll over for no Nazi robots...
America's Army doesn't appear to have evil robots.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
FTA:
One onlooker told the protesters they should support their country. Another passer-by snapped back at him: "That's exactly what she's doing."
That might be the most embiggening thing about the entire episode... that people (who are not just typing it on their blog) are starting to realize that.
If I knew the wedgies I gave you back in 6th grade would have resulted in this . . . I might have taken a moments pause.
It's my position, and one that I see echoed in many online communities, that games don't impact actual behavior. That laws seeking to limit or restrict games based on content are out of line. That lawsuits blaming violence on games are completely out of line. So - while I understand the emotions driving these folks, from a logical stand point, I think they are wasting their time and the army is wasting money.
If someone would like to argue that the game preps youth for war and predisposes them to join the army, then they would seem to be arguing that gta prepares and predisposes players to crime and violence, etc.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
So they want the game to be more realistic?
... Somehow... And yet, somehow, still, ...
More stress disorders?
Trying to get healthcare in a VA Hospital after having a leg or hand amputated?
Being able to play the role of an evil dictator sending armies into war?
There's a very well and good reason games are considered games, and a very fishy reason that a military of any country would put out a game "simulation" of actually being deployed. "Hey Joe, this game is fun! Let's join the army/marines/navy/airforce!"
You can't steal it. I bet that just chaps your hide, doesn't it?
As long as wars are profitable and corporations are making the decisions, marketing spin will follow. If the morale needs to be pumped from the top-down then maybe the cause is not just, or has not been communicated.
I couldn't agree more. It's not a game, It's a joke.
A war won, is still diplomacy failed.
The belief that you know a thing is a most perfect way to prevent learning.
They're well within their rights to protest the game as far as I'm concerned, the VA and/or local commanders may have other views. I however, do not agree with them and believe part of making an informed decision about joining the military should not in the least be influenced by playing an "Army Simulation". Get information from every source you can about joining BEFORE your sign up, choose a path that suits you and your talents and go from there. War is not a game, it's not a joke, but it exists regardless of whether you want it to or not. The game exists and whether or not it is designed to be a "simulator" which with today's technology could only loosely be called a "simulation", or just a game for fun's sake, is beside point. I say let it go...
FTA: "We want people to know the truth about military service and that it's not always what they say," she said. Dougherty said many potential recruits may not realize the consequences the prolonged war in Iraq may have on their service -- increased chances of repeated deployment, extended tours of duty, a call back into war even after a contract expires and difficulty accessing benefits upon return.
Let's get real here. When has the ARMY ever been what the recruiters said? Increased chances of repeated deployment, extended tours of duty, a call back into war..., difficulty accessing benefits..., sounds like it's the same as it has always been. If a potential recruit doesn't know all of this already then they simply haven't been paying attention.
ARMY recruiters are no different than most job recruiters. They make the same types of fantastic promises that simply never come to pass.
Yeah, but we can download it with BitTorrent. That makes it feel like stealing. Comcast will still screw with our connection.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
Diplomacy is for wimps and commies. What would make you think diplomacy would ever have worked? The ultimate solution to any argument is who can kick who's ass. Only intellectuals seem to miss this truth. Just because we are reasonable, intelligent, people does not mean others are. If someone hates you, you can't talk them out of it but you can kick their ass so bad they're scared to mess with you. Simple truth of life.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
Any time America's Army comes up, I always think about how insane it is that on the one hand many people and politicians in the U.S. are hysterical about video games supposedly causing violent behavior, while at the same time I hear no real objections from these people to their tax dollars being used to develop a game whose explicit point, AFAIK, is to persuade kids to take part in actual violence (by becoming soldiers).
I am not a pacifist, and I don't object to people serving in the military. My father served in the military and so did his father. I think that, whatever the realities, there are some good, noble reasons to become a soldier. I just don't think that "killing people is fun" is one of them.
I also don't really think (in the absence of convincing evidence) that video games generally lead to violent behavior. I do think, though, that a game put out by the Army that touts its realism can shape the ideas of what combat is like in impressionable minds, so I definitely have an ethical problem with them using it as part of a recruiting effort with people who are just coming into adulthood.
"You call it a new way of thinking; I call it regression to ignorance!" -- Operation Ivy
unless you count the DIs. ;)
[Drill Instructor]
According to this ad for the army, the army seems to think that war is just another game on another level. sickening.
A random member of the public told AN IRAQ WAR VETERAN to support his country?
It's unethical because it is a lie.
In this simulation (I had a chance to play it because I used to work where they designed it.), the players are veritably invincible. The only thing realistic about it is that they are ambushed by a terrorist force of surprising size and ferocity. IEDs are blowing up all over and no players get hurt or die in any way. Also, these HMVs that you are riding in are apparently made of duranium alloy and surrounded in a force field, because the HMVs were not even affected by nearly constant rocket fire.
It supports the idea that our Army is invincible and if you join it, you will be, too. That is why it is unethical.
Resistance is futile. Your technological distinctiveness will be added to our own. You will become one with the morgue
"It's my position, and one that I see echoed in many online communities, that games don't impact actual behavior. That laws seeking to limit or restrict games based on content are out of line. That lawsuits blaming violence on games are completely out of line. So - while I understand the emotions driving these folks, from a logical stand point, I think they are wasting their time and the army is wasting money."
Something to think about then. Since games can't affect actual behaviour, then that means that games can't be used for positive things either.
Next time some senator wants to censor games, how about sending him a copy of AA and ask him for a comment?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I knew I forgot to download something! Thanks protesters for reminding me!
But really, saying the game isn't like war is like pointing out real life doesn't have a "respawn" key. It also ignores the quite probable fact (I don't know this for sure, I don't have any data to back this up, this is just what I think is probably true) that plenty of people play FPSs... including AA... without ever intending to join the army or pick up a real gun.
Plus, let's say it WAS very close to the real thing as a virtual game could get... I don't think anyone who died even once in the game would want to try their luck in the real army...
I worked for the America's Army team when they were located at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, CA. I wanted to get some more game industry experience on my resume and it was the only local job of its nature. It was a cool bunch of people working on the game, your typical bunch of gamers and artists. The only major difference was that we were all working on a piece of major recruitment propaganda for the Pentagon.
You had these guys in military uniforms talking about how great it was that this game saves them hundreds of millions of dollars in recruitment costs. How it has gotten millions of downloads and been very successful in weeding out people who sign up for service without knowing what they are getting into. Instead you get guys like FPS Doug who might be thinking "hey, war is just like FPS, so why not sign up for the military and get paid to goto college!"
After two weeks I couldn't take it anymore. The job was great, the environment was great, the people were friendly, and the product was encouraging young Americans to sign their lives away and be sent off to Iraq. It bothered me too much so I staged my own little protest, I just walked out of the office and never went back. Not like I was crucial to the team, but I didn't want to have something on my resume which I completely morally objected to.
The WW2 generation and their children have a sickening level of governmental trust. I heard the "we are at war" line from some old guy in the grocery store, but we are NOT AT WAR. The playtime in Iraq police action wasn't important enough to merit a declaration of war from Congress, nor a draft! I dunno about you, but I don't think we really need to be in Iraq. We should have kept in Afghanistan and found Osama, even if we did have to invade our 'allies' the Saudies.
Blar.
Really? Have you been in the military and done basic training?
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Contrary to the opinions expressed by others here, I think that video games make a great contribution to educating young people about the realities of war. In your average war game, the fighting begins with no real purpose (indeed, such things are often considered irrelevant by the players) and the only real costs of mounting casualties are to the players' egos, and to the effectiveness of their side as they begin to "win" or "lose". How does this not reflect the attitudes and outlooks of the people who lead us to war ? The analogy goes further - at the conclusion of each match, the contestants (whether they have won or lost) are encouraged, by pride and by their own excitement, to "try again", perhaps on a new battlefield with a familiar group of people but a different set of alliances and opponents. The modern war video game is in many ways a most accurate model of modern warfare, and I think it behooves parents and leaders alike to encourage young people to play these games, and to reflect for themselves on what the games might mean to them.
In Soviet America the banks rob you!
...And ask for his comments, Florida anti-gaming lawyer Jack Thompson took a moment to share his views with us:
"This is not a situation in where the ESRB will be blind-sided by hidden or embedded content. This game promotes the killing of innocent people.
The goal is to make it such a negative thing that the retailers won't carry it. This thing hasn't really reached critical mass as a public relations problem yet; that's what I'm trying to do.
Towards that goal, I have half a mind to sue the Department of Defense and get this whole thing scrapped."
On a related note, 96% of the 1081 people polled agreed with Mr. Thompson. As one person stated: "Of course it's obvious, Jack Thompson has half a mind."
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
It's St. Louis, not St. Lois. :-)
As a military member, I agree with a lot of what these veterans are saying. War is NOT a joke, it is NOT a game, and its consequences are very real. I've been injured in the desert, and getting health care from the Army-- even while I'm STILL on active duty-- is a very difficult task. I don't know that these elements are covered by the game. I'm also wary of the government spending taxpayer money on a video game-- I certainly don't consider it the *wisest* use of my tax money, but then again, I think the same thing about OIF.
That said, I have no desire to see the game discontinued because it might-possibly-theoretically-kinda-sorta convince a kid that joining the Army is something worth doing. The Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps all offer something to those willing to take up the challenge-- whether it be educational benefits, travel opportunities (eight countries and counting), or just a steady job. For a lot of people, these are great opportunities. If a video game provides people with a more detailed view of military life, and helps somebody decide that they want that life, then I'm not sure it's such a bad thing.
(I would also like to note that military recruiters in EVERY branch are known for not showing "the whole truth" to recruits. I've seen tons of recruitment videos, pamphlets, and presentations that show the same above-listed benefits and opportunities-- while showing none of the downsides. It's the nature of the recruitment machine. If we want to change it, perhaps we should start with the top, and institute reforms throughout the recruiting corps-- not just the video game.)
The game is propaganda, and we should recognize that and make sure that our kids who play the game realize it, too. Once we've done that, we have to allow the next generation to make their own decisions about whether or not to enlist. For those who do-- I thank them for their service and wish them the best. For those who don't-- I thank them for their consideration and wish them the best, as well.
Yeah you are right, it would be wrong for me to draw that conclusion based only on my experiences. But hey, my 'gut' says that the older generations are more trusting of government, especially given the "we are at war" fallacy that they have, in my experience, bought into.
Blar.
This is kind of an aside; just recollecting what's been floating though my mind for the last few days. It seems to me that the leadership of the United States of America is losing it's way. As a frightening parallel in history, in Germany the Nazis rose to power by gradually placing more and more control into the hands of selected capitalists. We called it Fascism then. The same can be seen in the USA today, war profiteering is being funneled into the wealth of those who made the decision to war in the first place! An old-boys network such as this sadly is a fact of life but what strengthens the parallel between the Nazis and the current USA is that the leadership is also paying less heed to the wishes of the people they claim to represent. I hope that those who are ignorant of history don't drag the rest of us through it. Again.
If you read a book called Earth by David Brin, he describes his vision of the near future as basically including a war where the bankers and anyone on their records are shot - cleansing the parasitism from societies fabric.
What do you think? Because in the age of Information you can make a difference!
Shh.
"People who believe fanatastic, unlikely, promises deserve to get screwed."
2006 is the year for desktop Linux.
There's a pretty interesting psychological component to this game and others like it that a lot of people seem to be missing. While violent games themselves don't lead the avereage 14 y/o to commit mass murder, it does condition them to be able to pull the trigger. Historically, about 90% of the casualties inflicted in war (after you've taken away those caused by indirect fire like artillery) are inflicted by only about 2% of the combatants. Killing another human being is not something that is instinctual and most people find the idea repugnant, to the point that even when there own life is threatened, they can fail to commit an act of violence in their own defense.
There area couple of books, "On Killing" and "On Combat" by Dave Grossman that have been making the rounds in military and law enforcement circles for several years now that can offer a lot of insight on the subject. They are well worth the read even if you aren't in either field as the author looks at how video games whether funded by the government or by EA can condition people to commit violent acts easier.
Erik
"As long as wars are profitable and corporations are making the decisions, marketing spin will follow."
I guess schools have stopped teaching history. Wars have been "marketed" since man started organized warfare. You don't need profit nor corporations to have "marketing". You just need a public to draw upon, and the need to convince them that your war is the one they should be part of. And in a lot of cases you don't need even that.e.g. draft.
All SHOOTAN GAEMS are the exact same. If you're protesting America's Army, you're protesting Half Life 2, Counterstrike, Weapons Factory, Team Fortress, Quake, Doom, Blood, Duke Nukem, Sin, Black, Medal of Honor, Gears of War, OH GOD FUCK IT THE LIST WILL BE INFINITE IF I COMPLETE IT
But hey... yes, protest the SHOOTAN GAEMS genre. They're the opposite of innovative
it seems that this depends heavily on how high up in the administration one is
No one turned this into a nerd discussion of the merits of the game. Which, given the topic, is somewhat OT.
... something like 3 or 4:1.
... don't get suckered by the propaganda - but for those of you who didn't play based purely on that, you missed a great game. I'm not sure how well that game engine has stood the test of time (especially now that the next gen games are on their way out, bioshock, etc), but it certainly was a blast.
I will comment that it's a shame the US Army put this game out, since it's (and I will argue so) one of the more realistic FPS games out there. Fuck Rainbow Six. Fuck Counterstrike. This is the game where I can easily give out orders, or better yet, USE HAND SIGNALS to quickly communicate with my teammates. In fact, it's better to use hand signals since the sound of your own f'ing radio can give you away.
Cover-fire, positioning, and tactics all made this a great squad based game - it was a dream come true to find yourself on several teams that actually knew what they were doing.
And bless whomever made 'Pipeline'. Truly an awesome map - balanced and interesting.
I played up till I was about rank 90 or so - I had a fairly high kill to death ratio as well (no, I did not just sit around and whore on defense - I played roughly 50/50)
So yeah, for those of us anti-war / our government
Good lord! At least somebody will "cut them some slack" for exercising their First Amendment rights!
You think these soldiers have been misled by the liberal media just because they oppose the war? They saw the war. You didn't. My friend Jim, 25, was a medic in Falluja. He is against the war. He came back and his hair was gray, and he is 25. I think that gives him more than the right to have any opinion he wants.
Anecdotes aside, even if I disagree with someone who is pro-war, I can at least argue with them because I think they are wrong, giving them some credit for coming to their own views through experience or rationale...no matter how stupid I think the conclusions are. So "pray" they change their minds about it, wow. Sounds like you are ashamed of them for having minds in the first place.
Think about your argument: the big thing I hear from pro-war people with the "support our troops" line was that after Vietnam, troops came home and were spit on by anti-war people; now troops come back from Iraq and are given crap by pro-war people? And simultaneously told they need to "support the troops" by people who didn't even serve? Unbelievable.
i am the opposite of tom_good, i am the XOR of ]=9fÆ"ÝÕ and ÖÆ\KF, i am 746F6D5F6576696C00.
"What's the button to watch your best friend die, get hooked on drugs, and then return to a country that hates you?"
"I'm not sure there is a... Oh, it's 'Q'."
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/17
The video of this protest, along with a more substantive interview can be found here.
Actually, WAR IS A GAME from mathematics point of view. (The outcome of such game are 99.99% of the time nasty, but that does not mean is not a game). Have you heard about Game Theory?
As a former US Air Force computer programmer, we used to always laugh at AA. It just showed us that the Army gave the important programs that actually save lives and require the skills to develop up to us and left their own programmers to make games.
Yes, but i somehow doubt that the army is promoting mathematical game theory in their ads. Would make a nice campaign, though! :)
Anybody know if there are military strategy books/essays based using game theory?
It should come as no surprise that anti-war veterans or any anti-war activists oppose this. By definition, they are against any recruitment. Although, this group will claim they are only against unfair recruitment. Yet everyone going into the military has plenty of information available to them to know what they are getting into and a video game isn't going to magically make anyone forget the possible disadvantages to joining our armed forces. The game is made by our military men and women and is done in a very tasteful and honorable way. I think it is definitely a very smart recruiting tool that will eventually be viewed as way ahead of its time. Using the activists' logic, we shouldn't have war game operations or combat and flight simulators for training our military because "war isn't a game." If we followed the advice of these poorly guided souls, we wouldn't have a military. The opposition of the game, by this group, is yet another smear tactic in an attempt to further dirty the reputation of our excellent armed forces, the very basis of this great country's security. While I will be forever grateful to their service, I will have everlasting disdain for their twisted idea of security for this country.
That's the method of ancient Greek philosophy, and while it was great at the time, we've developed this thing since called "scientific research." There were these guys named Galileo and Newton, among a multitude of others, who figured out that merely holding an opinion does not make you right. They went out into the world and found answers.
Sadly, years of research suggest that you are very very wrong. Violence in television and video games leads to aggressive behavior. It's been tested. Over, and over, and over again, flying in the face of what we gamers don't want to believe... but it is nonetheless true.
Want some information on studies? Here you go: this first one is a guy to whom the psychological community basically defers when talking about youths and media-related violence:
Albert Bandura's study: http://www.psychologymatters.org/bandura2.html
In fact, the psychology community is so sure that there is a major link between media-violence and aggression that they have been making statements since the 80's admonishing parents and the community to do something about it:
American Psychological Association on TV violence: http://www.apa.org/about/division/cpmpubint5.html
Or, if you like, here's the meat: "WHEREAS, the great majority of research studies have found a relationship between televised violence and behaving aggressively, and WHEREAS, the conclusion drawn on the basis of 25 years of research and a sizable number of experimental and field investigations (NIMH, 1972, 1982) is that viewing televised violence may lead to increases in aggressive attitudes, values, and behavior, particularly in children" The above goes on to say why they think something needs to be done by parents and the government about media violence. For all of you on
Some people at this point might not yet be convinced, saying that "video games and TV are totally different." This is, of course, ludicrous... video games are becoming so life-like anymore, and I can't say for sure, but I bet that since we're talking about "learned behavior," and younger generations are more apt to learn by doing than by simply watching, video games are actually more influential than TV. But, that's just a guess, and you want a study. Fine.
Since video games specifically are newer than TV, not as much research has been done on them. Still, here's info on study on video-game violence dating back to 2000:
Article citing Anderson's study on video games: http://www.psychologymatters.org/mediaviolence.ht
We can give anecdotes until we're blue in the face about how we play GTA but we don't shoot hookers. But science holds firm above anecdotes, my friends.
Don't cry "Oust Bush," cry "Restore Freedom!" Don't support a candidate who isn't doing anything to unravel Bush's web.
It's the movie Toys: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0105629/
Why, yes I have been touched by His noodly appendage. And I plan to sue.
Look, I served. I was over there. It sucked.
And I and others came back a little worse for the wear but pretty much the same people we were. So a "peace" movement managed to scrape up some malcontents, big deal. I bet not all of whom were soldiers, much less combat troops. Of the few that actually turn out to have really served and been in theater, a majority of them are REMFS (Rear Echelon Muther Fuckers) and other deskbound dickheads who never saw the real combat other than random SAF blocks away from their safe concrete buildings.
Face it, there are always shitbirds IN the military (look at Swofford), so there will always be shitbirds that get out of the military and try to trash it. More recently, look at Beauchamp and the The National Review and the fabrications he put there. Turns out he was a REMF and a liar. Same for the fakes, like Jesse MacBeth - who was presented bythe peace protest groups as an Anti-War combat veteran Ranger. There are many other instances of that sort of thign as well. The "Peace" movement is very good at latching onto fake soldiers and non-combat vets as long as they are willing to sing the right tune to the cameras and pose as something they are not.
Given the history of such willing fools, I'd highly discount almost all of the protesters - since its likely many of them are either fakes or not combat arms.
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo! http://goo.gl/J9bkO
Anyone surprised at the above from an Anonymous Coward?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I have always suspected that the soldiers put on display by anti-war groups were definitely misguided, but generally not representative of your average soldier. If this wasn't the case, logic suggests that we would have a much greater veteran presence at these anti-war demonstrations -- not just the few you see that likely had their doubts about the military and our country from the start. Thank you for confirming that from the perspective of someone who has been there.
Perhaps, the only thing that might combat these anti-war veterans effectively are the pro-US/pro-Defense veterans. Unfortunately, it wasn't enough to put your life on the line day-in and day-out in a foreign inhospitable land for months on end. You now have to defend yourself from these phony posers because they had the honor of wearing a military uniform. I can only imagine the rage that must fill many of you as you read these sorts of stories.
Let me tell you that there are still many informed Americans that have always understood why we needed to go to war and will stand by our the troops and our President as we continue to defend this great nation. Please continue to stay informed, optimistic, and steadfast. It is people like yourself that will continue to steer this country in the right direction and that will continue to defend our country in the face of ever-growing opposition.
You truly are a hero in every sense of the word. Us citizens that have been able to continue life as normal because of your sacrifices will never be able to thank you enough. I wish you and your combat brothers much love and support! Take care.
Stop saying that. It denigrates real wars and those who sacrificed in those wars.
Blar.
Nope, you don't get it. Liberals are evil, because they are branded that way. Facts don't matter, truth is what we say it is