I've never really been comfortable with war for games

[Craig234]

War is great for games. You have battleships and bombers! You defend your homeland and destroy the enemy!

Boom boom, plan battles, fun!

So many problems are because people don't view them enough as problems. War is abstract, and for the history of mankind people have chosen war over 'shame' for the nation. Things like genocide happen because of distorted views - as did slavery, and people largely just had a distorted view of it and a lack of understanding of the harms and options and obligations morally. A lot of problems happen from this.

War is monstrous, and most top generals and others I see who have experienced it agree. But it's so often sold to and accepted by the public that it's sanitized, turned into 'victory' and 'glory'.

So I'd like people to think of war to be far worse than they do - to think of the people devastated and to feel a huge moral compulsion to prevent it, not to accept it as an option.

And so we have this dilemma - 'but it's fun' as a game. It's entertaining and only pixels are hurt.

But I can't help but think that taking the 'fun' things about war and having millions 'play' it is a blinding thing as to the real horrors of war.

It's hard to resolve how to have people do both.

It 'normalizes' war - which is already far too normalized. It used to be we didn't want a standing army at all - just to organize a military if we got invaded from the citizens. Instead now we have hundreds of bases covering the globe and we're one sentence away from a monster running North Korea deciding to launch a nuclear missile, every day, it's all just 'normal'.

A rare exception was a game that did the opposite of normalizing war - one to educate people about some of the harm, called "This War of Mine". What a great message it had, as limited as it was.

So, I'm ambivalent as war makes for such good games, about how to have them not make war more likely, to reduce the awareness of it as utter horror.

I think that Nazis, aliens, and zombies became stand-ins for the dehumanization of war - slaughtering thousands of a real group can get a bit touchy, so replace them with zombies and enjoy.

I guess it's a little like 'black-face' entertainment that was popular until people developed in their thinking to realize it was harmful and offensive and a bad idea. All good fun until then.

Not clear what a 'solution' is. I'm not calling for censorship. I don't know how to have games include both the fun and the messages of war as horror or to have 'war is horror' replace 'fun' war games.

Just discussing that I feel uncomfortable about the enjoyment of the war games by so many who seem to have no idea how bad war is.

I guess this topic could have been written about war movies also - movies that celebrated largely sanitized war that had drama, bravery, heroes who got the girl - I call it 'war porn' as a genre.

Movies where 'your side' is shown to be so in the right, and justifying the war.

At least they tended to have some more appreciation of SOME of the harm of war, usually. There isn't nearly as much of that in most war games other than scripted bits.

I guess this is related to the popularity of violence in entertainment. But war seems worth singling out as an issue.

There are a lot of entertainment products making violence fun, and very few - like a few books and movies - with the message of the horrors. E.g., Gallipoli, or The Red Badge of Courage.

I write this as I was considering buying a game in the 'close combat' series and asking which is best, and then considering more, is that the fun I want?

I've long thought of the idea of a game that's a 'Nazi simulator', for artistic purposes to encourage people to think about 'fun' and sanitizing horror - have a person run genocide like a 'sim' game, being awarded for efficiency, have a 'human medical experiments' project where they can select what to do and gain rewards for good pick - a game that's 'fun' yet horrifying. It'd be controversial - but help people understand a little how evil happens. When it becomes people's jobs and is how they're rewarded and there aren't easy alternatives.

What would happen to pioneers who said 'hold on, what about the Indians' rights?' To a southerner who said, 'hold on, slavery is wrong'. A few did, and were met by great hostility.

A game where you, say, play a Palestinian who is oppressed, or an undocumented worker in the US avoiding problems, would be quite educational - but don't sound as 'fun' as 'fun' games.

Once in a while entertainment not promoting war is pulled off, a bit, such as when M*A*S*H was a top TV show that had anti-war tones.

This raises an issue, of what effects entertainment has on the views of violence.

Gamers are quick to defend their games against attacks of the claim that 'violence in games causes violence by players'. But that doesn't mean they don't have some effects.

So, we just need people to try to recognize that war is horrible, while having a great time 'playing' it.

And to think about it. If a game was made where you play a mass school shooter, people would say, 'oh that's in poor taste!' But what's really the difference, if it was otherwise a 'fun' FPS?

Is it really the subject - or that our views are biased to view one as more bad taste than the other?

 

[cmdrdredd]

Meh...it's a game...it's not reality...I have no problem popping off headshots in a videogame but that is never going to make me do it IRL or desensitize me from it. Remember the scene in Call of Duty where you walk into the airport and shoot all the people and the outrage over it. Did gamers suddenly start copying that? No.

This line of thinking is a slippery slope where the art form of videogame creation will be compromised in the name of social justice. I don't crave a world like Demolition Man where everything considered bad, vulgar, or in poor taste is illegal. No thank you. I want my Grand Theft Auto titles, I want my first person shooters, I want my fantasy violence where I can dismember my enemy with a sword. In the words of Fallout..."War, War Never Changes"

 

[Craig234]

Meh...it's a game...it's not reality...I have no problem popping off headshots in a videogame but that is never going to make me do it IRL or desensitize me from it. Remember the scene in Call of Duty where you walk into the airport and shoot all the people and the outrage over it. Did gamers suddenly start copying that? No.

This line of thinking is a slippery slope where the art form of videogame creation will be compromised in the name of social justice. I don't crave a world like Demolition Man where everything considered bad, vulgar, or in poor taste is illegal. No thank you. I want my Grand Theft Auto titles, I want my first person shooters, I want my fantasy violence where I can dismember my enemy with a sword. In the words of Fallout..."War, War Never Changes"

You're guilty of a straw man here, using the argument about 'ban it' that I specifically excluded, instead of what I wrote.

 

[paperfist]

I've learned a lot from war games, they aren't all bad. I've learned geography, cultures, the horrors of death especially by knife or grenade.

I've learned about history both good and bad, weaponry, equipment, strategy, team work, and tactics.

I would have never known about Kahn, Sitting Bull, the Hanging Gardens, or the Terra-cotta Army.

I learned about global warming and rising oceans, the importance of the Bronze Age and iron workings. Democracy, Fedualism, Ceremonial burial, Taoism, Buddhism, and the likes of nuclear devastation.

Sure war is horrible, just watch the commercials on Fox News. I disagree whole heartily that there's no value in gaming and that it glorifies violence. I think they are an invaluable tool of teaching about past digressions, history and our place in the world.

You simply cannot ignore what has happened on earth. Hitler, genocide, torture, slavery, brothers killing brothers all happened and I think video games teach us about this better than any book or documentary.

In parting the old game Medal of Honor etched into my mind and gave me a profound respect for WWII veterans of the absolute nightmare that was Omaha Beach.

 

[Craig234]

I disagree whole heartily that there's no value in gaming and that it glorifies violence.

Me too; who are you disagreeing with? Otherwise, you made good points - I would just say that the 'horror of war' seems rare in the games, but not absent.

 

[HitAnyKey]

War games are still just games. I have yet to play anything that would resemble the real horrors of war because I have no idea what that would be; and hopefully I never find out. In the end they are still just pixels on a screen like any other genre. Entertainment in one form or another that the public and government has allowed for consumption.

OP: You could make the argument for almost any genre of game that has violence in it. And this argument has been made before unsuccessfully.

I would argue that some war games are simply about strategy. Battleship, the board and video game, for example is simply the guessing of your opponent's location. There is no violence. Yet it is a war game. Chess is another game of war. No violence, pure strategy and the victory of only one.

Sounds like the OP is writing a school paper, fishing for responses on a topic that is designed to raise frustration from gamers. Another word for that is trolling.

Trolling could be considered an act of war against gamers.

 

[DeadFred]

Virtue signal much, OP?

 

[Craig234]

War games are still just games. I have yet to play anything that would resemble the real horrors of war because I have no idea what that would be; and hopefully I never find out. In the end they are still just pixels on a screen like any other genre. Entertainment in one form or another that the public and government has allowed for consumption.

OP: You could make the argument for almost any genre of game that has violence in it. And this argument has been made before unsuccessfully.

I would argue that some war games are simply about strategy. Battleship, the board and video game, for example is simply the guessing of your opponent's location. There is no violence. Yet it is a war game. Chess is another game of war. No violence, pure strategy and the victory of only one.

Sounds like the OP is writing a school paper, fishing for responses on a topic that is designed to raise frustration from gamers. Another word for that is trolling.

Trolling could be considered an act of war against gamers.

Well, that's not the most thoughtful response, IMO. I said the games have those elements, extracting the 'fun', the explosions, the battle planning, etc., and you repeated my point. Yay. You missed the point. No, you have no seen a post like mine in what you refer to which is also you just doing a straw man of things I had specifically excluded. Oh well, not everyone will get the topic.

 

[mdram]

there were never any war based board games, it all started with video games........

its a game, nothing more

 

[cmdrdredd]

You're guilty of a straw man here, using the argument about 'ban it' that I specifically excluded, instead of what I wrote.

Guess what happens when social justice warriors get offended?

 

[Craig234]

there were never any war based board games, it all started with video games........

its a game, nothing more

A board game and a video game are usually quite different - though of course some are the same. Board games never had the 'fun' of looking through a sniper scope and aiming at a person's head and blowing it up, or other 'simulated war' that make the war 'fun' and sanitize the real harms.

Seriously, it's a bit like having 'sim death camp', where you run a death camp, and have video simulation of the suffering (analogous to the 'head shot explosion' of the sniper), and it's sanitized to all be 'fun' to get 'good scores' running the camp efficiently. My point is that there's a bit of dilemma that the games can be real fun, while the horror of war is also stripped in many cases.

Another example might be 'sim rape', where you stalk targets, maybe try to slip them drugs in their drink, see their horror being raped, but it's put in a 'fun' game. Why not? It's just pixels, no one is actually harmed. It's just something to think about, when things are made entertainment. As I said before, similar questions could be asked about things like some war movies that I called 'war porn'.

 

[Craig234]

Guess what happens when social justice warriors get offended?

You need to learn to communicate better - your attempt at a rhetorical question makes no sense. But if you are an opponent of 'social justice', feel free not to respond.

 

[Rebel_L]

War is great for games. You have battleships and bombers! You defend your homeland and destroy the enemy!

Boom boom, plan battles, fun!

So many problems are because people don't view them enough as problems. War is abstract, and for the history of mankind people have chosen war over 'shame' for the nation. Things like genocide happen because of distorted views - as did slavery, and people largely just had a distorted view of it and a lack of understanding of the harms and options and obligations morally. A lot of problems happen from this.

War is monstrous, and most top generals and others I see who have experienced it agree. But it's so often sold to and accepted by the public that it's sanitized, turned into 'victory' and 'glory'.

So I'd like people to think of war to be far worse than they do - to think of the people devastated and to feel a huge moral compulsion to prevent it, not to accept it as an option.

And so we have this dilemma - 'but it's fun' as a game. It's entertaining and only pixels are hurt.

If your issue is with society glorifying war then I dont really see how video games are a particular relevant part of the discussion. It seems like a cart before the horse situation to go that direction. War has been celebrated by our society long before the creation of video games and it is that celebration which causes war video games to be popular, not the other way around. It also explains why a rape or genocide game wouldnt be so popular since they are not celebrated the same way. If you want to talk about why societies celebrate war in the first place and the advantages and disadvantages of that then I really dont think the PC gaming forum is the best place for that.

 

[ImpulsE69]

For years after being in a war (you know..actually there)...I played a lot less FPS games in general. Especially realistic war based games such as CoD and BF. It just..didn't sit well with me and made me feel bad for the people still over there. Same with war movies. I can't really watch Saving Private Ryan for this same reason. That has wore off over time and I do play 'make believe' based FPS - or non war type games. I don't play CoD or BF simply because they suck these days.

The reality is though people were playing war games long before video games. Even active duty members in combat zones play games like Risk and Axis and Allies in their down time and with more computers and internet these days I bet they are playing war games online as well now. I don't expect everyone is affected the same way by war and what they find as entertainment. War is competition and humans LOVE competition. It's not glorifying war, people would play 'war' in any medium regardless.

 

[escrow4]

If your issue is with society glorifying war then I dont really see how video games are a particular relevant part of the discussion. It seems like a cart before the horse situation to go that direction. War has been celebrated by our society long before the creation of video games and it is that celebration which causes war video games to be popular, not the other way around. It also explains why a rape or genocide game wouldnt be so popular since they are not celebrated the same way. If you want to talk about why societies celebrate war in the first place and the advantages and disadvantages of that then I really dont think the PC gaming forum is the best place for that.

You forget Rape Lai and the fascination Japs have with tentacles and rape. As to the OP, get over yourself. Its a game. And they are popular because humans are nothing but animals that have somehow ascended (so far) to the top of the food chain, yet all we really care about still is banging and killing and eating. Base instincts run everything.

 

[cmdrdredd]

You need to learn to communicate better - your attempt at a rhetorical question makes no sense. But if you are an opponent of 'social justice', feel free not to respond.

Now we know where you stand. People making arguments like you is what banned extra large sodas in New York and supersize fries. Instead of saying “it’s not for me” and moving on you have to make it a big deal and talk down to anyone who thinks you are off your rocker.

 

[Craig234]

If your issue is with society glorifying war then I dont really see how video games are a particular relevant part of the discussion. It seems like a cart before the horse situation to go that direction. War has been celebrated by our society long before the creation of video games and it is that celebration which causes war video games to be popular, not the other way around. It also explains why a rape or genocide game wouldnt be so popular since they are not celebrated the same way. If you want to talk about why societies celebrate war in the first place and the advantages and disadvantages of that then I really dont think the PC gaming forum is the best place for that.

That's a great point to make a distinction about different parts of the issue.

One is the glorification of war, typically done to build public support. A Nazi leader made a very useful statement about this saying, people don't want war - at best they get home safe - but how to manipulate them into supporting it. That's one type of media product, and NOT the one I'm talking about - I'd say I've never seen a game made for that purpose, the US military game the closest.

A different issue is when war is made 'fun' - when the 'fun bits' are extracted and the real horrors hidden, so you find yourself blowing that guy's head off with a big smile on your face, rather than any thinking about the real world version and the harm, even while you understand there is a difference.

And that's where the analogy to 'sim death camp' comes in, IF it were made into an otherwise 'fun' game, so you find yourself just giggly enjoying running the death camp and not thinking about the horror of the real world counterpart, the real suffering.

I think this can happen to a small extent even with some real military people - I've seen some who actually like the violence, maybe they're sociopaths. But if anyone thinks a real military leader who plans a battle and has a great success doesn't take some pleasure from that despite the harm - they seem to go together. And obviously the home land is encouraged to cheer the victories.

So the issue I'm referring to is not the glorification of war but the sanitization of it for fun. My impression is that real soldiers both tend to find horror in killing much of the time, but that some sometimes get sort of intoxicated by it and enjoy it also - this goes to the sort of 'war trophy' rule where you might see soldiers cutting off the ears of enemies and whooping it up.

But that's not the area I'm meaning to discuss - real war and games are too different for the issues to belong together.

How often have we cheered the killing of enemies - slaughter over Indians (remember how popular the cowboy and indian genre of film was, with the obligatory slaughter of indians to please the audience), or the lack of remorse felt when two Japanese cities were nuked because we were desensitized to the killing - only to later better appreciate the humanity of those killed and see harm in it as well.

When a US president goes to Hiroshima now, he doesn't take his defense minister to high five and mock the Japanese - he solemnly expresses respect for the victims however justified he has to claim the bombing was.

Games making war fun push people in the other direction, back to desensitization - and that is where the analogy to sim death camp comes in - why people might find that idea 'offensive' while the simulation of war horrors is not.

This goes somewhat to a larger issue - the fact that there is a view that war is mass murder claimed to be otherwise, versus the supporters of the war, and that difference of opinion would make it hard to make much progress on that part of the issue. Asking people who accept the war as needed and good to question that is a hard task.

But even they can recognize the issue of the horror of war being lost on people. And it's left me with those mixed feelings - between the real fun of a war game and the uncomfortableness of making something to terrible 'fun'. I don't want to rape a virtual woman, to torture a virtual kitten, or to blow the head off of a virtual soldier, when I think about the real counterparts.

And I love sniping as gameplay - but only when it's not 'realistic' for that reason. While others want the most 'realism' they can get and 'more blood and guts' is a marketing point.

I'm just saying how I feel about the issue, for discussion.

 

[Craig234]

Now we know where you stand. People making arguments like you is what banned extra large sodas in New York and supersize fries. Instead of saying “it’s not for me” and moving on you have to make it a big deal and talk down to anyone who thinks you are off your rocker.

This isn't the place for the rational person versus the ignorant neanderthal type disagreement you are introducing (yes, I support the 'nanny' measures you refer to, and I carefully balance the benefit versus the restriction on 'freedom', but this isn't the place for those topics.) And yes, there is more to the issue for me than 'it's not for me' - just as I don't just ignore people using hate speech.

99.99% of the time, those discussion are nothing but conflict and the neanderthal side gets no benefit.

Which I understand you think is talking down, so take your own advice, and just say 'it's not for me' on this topic and move on.

 

[Craig234]

You forget Rape Lai and the fascination Japs have with tentacles and rape. As to the OP, get over yourself. Its a game. And they are popular because humans are nothing but animals that have somehow ascended (so far) to the top of the food chain, yet all we really care about still is banging and killing and eating. Base instincts run everything.

I didn't exactly forget the Japanese - there are analogies with them, but it's not the same issue.

Your tone can get better - I can only say speak for yourself on the animalism issue, but I understand your opinion. I'm glad to disagree with it or we'd have a lot bigger problems.

 

[Craig234]

For years after being in a war (you know..actually there)...I played a lot less FPS games in general. Especially realistic war based games such as CoD and BF. It just..didn't sit well with me and made me feel bad for the people still over there. Same with war movies. I can't really watch Saving Private Ryan for this same reason. That has wore off over time and I do play 'make believe' based FPS - or non war type games. I don't play CoD or BF simply because they suck these days.

The reality is though people were playing war games long before video games. Even active duty members in combat zones play games like Risk and Axis and Allies in their down time and with more computers and internet these days I bet they are playing war games online as well now. I don't expect everyone is affected the same way by war and what they find as entertainment. War is competition and humans LOVE competition. It's not glorifying war, people would play 'war' in any medium regardless.

Thanks for the great informative post. It's about exactly what I suspected. Absolutely war games have long existed - chess really is one in a way and even Go has elements - but games like 'Risk' are so abstracted as to not have any of the issues I'm raising here about the kind of games you weren't comfortable playing. Your discomfort is exactly what I'm referring to. To repeat, this isn't about glorifying.

 

[paperfist]

Me too; who are you disagreeing with? Otherwise, you made good points - I would just say that the 'horror of war' seems rare in the games, but not absent.

I thought I was disagreeing with you Craig

 

[DAPUNISHER]

War. War never changes.

 

[Rebel_L]

So the issue I'm referring to is not the glorification of war but the sanitization of it for fun. My impression is that real soldiers both tend to find horror in killing much of the time, but that some sometimes get sort of intoxicated by it and enjoy it also - this goes to the sort of 'war trophy' rule where you might see soldiers cutting off the ears of enemies and whooping it up.

But that's not the area I'm meaning to discuss - real war and games are too different for the issues to belong together.

How often have we cheered the killing of enemies - slaughter over Indians (remember how popular the cowboy and indian genre of film was, with the obligatory slaughter of indians to please the audience), or the lack of remorse felt when two Japanese cities were nuked because we were desensitized to the killing - only to later better appreciate the humanity of those killed and see harm in it as well.

When a US president goes to Hiroshima now, he doesn't take his defense minister to high five and mock the Japanese - he solemnly expresses respect for the victims however justified he has to claim the bombing was.

Games making war fun push people in the other direction, back to desensitization - and that is where the analogy to sim death camp comes in - why people might find that idea 'offensive' while the simulation of war horrors is not.

This goes somewhat to a larger issue - the fact that there is a view that war is mass murder claimed to be otherwise, versus the supporters of the war, and that difference of opinion would make it hard to make much progress on that part of the issue. Asking people who accept the war as needed and good to question that is a hard task.

But even they can recognize the issue of the horror of war being lost on people. And it's left me with those mixed feelings - between the real fun of a war game and the uncomfortableness of making something to terrible 'fun'. I don't want to rape a virtual woman, to torture a virtual kitten, or to blow the head off of a virtual soldier, when I think about the real counterparts.

And I love sniping as gameplay - but only when it's not 'realistic' for that reason. While others want the most 'realism' they can get and 'more blood and guts' is a marketing point.

I'm just saying how I feel about the issue, for discussion.

I think the glorification goes hand in hand with the sanitization, how can you make people feel good about war and willing to be a soldier if the need arises if you dont make them feel like a hero doing good things. Its a lot easier to convince people of the glory of war if you can make it look good and dont show them the horrors involved. If you do at some point need soldiers you need to give them at least something to believe in that they can go through with the horrors. In general I think most civilizations have been really good at this, its the helping people deal with the horrors they end up experiencing when we send them off to war that we suck at.

As for desensitization or the fake violence being too real I would guess that it is a problem for a fairly small amount of people. People who have gone through things and are more sensitive will likely stay away from more realistic violence or choose a different for of entertainment. I believe that the vast majority of people deal well enough with the difference between story/game/imagination vs reality to not have a game/movie be the tipping point that pushes them into turning their violent fantasies into reality. On the other hand with our society trying to keep violence out of our general approach to conflict resolution it can add a stress relief option that was probably not so accessible to the non sports inclined before the age of video games.

 

[Stg-Flame]

I feel like Tumblr is leaking into other sites again.

 

[Ackmed]

I have always enjoyed them. I like history, and do a fair amount of reading on it. Most history involves some war. The Roman empire is very intriguing to me, and I have spent a great deal on the subject. Maybe games do normalize it, makes it trivial. "Horrors of war" is hard to articulate in a game. Old school COD's used to run short vids with some history to show some of it. But there is no real way to truly explain, nor should they, the real horrors of war.

As far as more modern war games go, it's a love/hate honestly. With the most "realistic" ones it strikes close to home. I have used many of the weapons, used the same lingo, moved as a FT, been to where they are set, etc. I have been on multiple combat deployments to Iraq, Afghanistan, and several countries in Africa. Been to others where they took place too, but on pleasure. Germany, France, Italy, etc. So I have somewhat of a connect. Especially with Middle Eastern games such as BF. It can bring up good and bad memories, and sometimes it just feels good to feel bad. If that makes any sense. Sometimes I'll go into my office, have a few drinks, and play some maps. Because I don't want to say too much, and have people use it against me later, I'll just stop there.