I've never really been comfortable with war for games

[RayCathode]

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.

I'm curious - would there be a lot bigger problems if you agreed with him or if you angrily disagreed? Your statement can be read both ways and they have drastically different implications.

I won't play any game based on a real conflict because I think it is disrespectful to those who experienced it (I'm no fan of most war movies for the same reason). Fortunately, my experience was just sitting around getting sunburned or piloting a desk so my opinion isn't worth anything.

 

[Craig234]

I'm curious - would there be a lot bigger problems if you agreed with him or if you angrily disagreed? Your statement can be read both ways and they have drastically different implications.

Lot bigger problems if I agreed.

I won't play any game based on a real conflict because I think it is disrespectful to those who experienced it (I'm no fan of most war movies for the same reason). Fortunately, my experience was just sitting around getting sunburned or piloting a desk so my opinion isn't worth anything.

Thanks for your comment - I can relate. And your opinion is worthwhile, you don't have to have been to war to have an opinion,. Thank goodness.[/QUOTE]

 

[Elfear]

The reason that rape simulations and concentration camp sims are different than war games is the fact that there is no good purpose for the first two. Rape and genocide are universally considered bad, for individuals and for society. War on the other hand has been both needed and a good thing. Let me explain what I mean by that. If a nation or civilization is attacked by another nation, they have two choices: 1) become subjugated or killed by the invading nation or 2) fight back and try to avoid #1. As someone who enjoys my freedom (a sentiment I share with most people in the world), I'm going to choose #2. Thankfully I have never had to go to war myself but I work everyday with people who have. One of the reasons we "glorify" war and make soldiers out to be heroes is because that is largely true. The men and women who committ themselves to standing in front of the enemy and protecting their neighbors is incredibly selfless. To see and experience the horrors of war and fight on in defense of others IS heroic. There is a vast difference between a rapist and a soldier which is why rapist games don't exist (or at least in low enough quantities that most of us have never heard of one) but we have a whole slew of war games.

Sidenote - I'm not trying to say that being able to play a heroic soldier is the only reason war games are so popular though. I agree with the other poster who said humans by nature are competetive and enjoy the challenge of playing against other humans.

As to your other point that war games can desensitize gamers to the horrors of war, I agree with that for the most part. IMO, some games do tend to glorify the violence aspect rather than the competitive side of war. I'm picky with what games I want to play for just that reason.

 

[Craig234]

The reason that rape simulations and concentration camp sims are different than war games is the fact that there is no good purpose for the first two. Rape and genocide are universally considered bad, for individuals and for society. War on the other hand has been both needed and a good thing. Let me explain what I mean by that. If a nation or civilization is attacked by another nation, they have two choices: 1) become subjugated or killed by the invading nation or 2) fight back and try to avoid #1. As someone who enjoys my freedom (a sentiment I share with most people in the world), I'm going to choose #2. Thankfully I have never had to go to war myself but I work everyday with people who have. One of the reasons we "glorify" war and make soldiers out to be heroes is because that is largely true. The men and women who committ themselves to standing in front of the enemy and protecting their neighbors is incredibly selfless. To see and experience the horrors of war and fight on in defense of others IS heroic. There is a vast difference between a rapist and a soldier which is why rapist games don't exist (or at least in low enough quantities that most of us have never heard of one) but we have a whole slew of war games.

Sidenote - I'm not trying to say that being able to play a heroic soldier is the only reason war games are so popular though. I agree with the other poster who said humans by nature are competetive and enjoy the challenge of playing against other humans.

As to your other point that war games can desensitize gamers to the horrors of war, I agree with that for the most part. IMO, some games do tend to glorify the violence aspect rather than the competitive side of war. I'm picky with what games I want to play for just that reason.

I agree with a good amount of your post, but I think it errs in portraying was as simply a necessary good - when most of the time it has not been. But my point isn't so much about the issue of war being necessary or not, as the issue of sanitizing it into fun and making it that much more appealing and acceptable.

The analogy with sim rape and sim concentration camp isn't to say they're the same as a soldier, but to address the 'it's just a game', 'it's just pixels no one was harmed' arguments.

As for the heroism of war, there can be great differences between, say, the Axis and the allies in WWII as national movements, while I find little difference, really, at the soldier level - they're all people fighting with 'heroism' for their country, however right or wrong that country - and we're hardly immune from being on the wrong side of that,, either, Vietnam being an example.

It's another issue to look at the right and wrong of war - I'm just looking at wanting the horror of war to be appreciated more, and 'fun' war can get in the way of that.

I'd like for the idea of one person being harmed in war to be seen as a horror, much less a million.

So, just discussing that and how the fun issue is a concern, and discussing whether are ways to have both better, the horror of war even while it's made fun also.

 

[MrSquished]

I only love fps video games and while I'm not a total pacifist I lean far more towards that side of the spectrum than not.

 

[dud]

My brain hurts after reading the OP.

All but war is simulation ...

 

[PrincessFrosty]

It's worth gathering some data to back these claims. I've read quite a few studies over the years that claim games and TV/Movies cause violence, desensitize us to certain things or cause us blur the lines between fantasy and reality. And they've all shown that actually none of those things are true.

Adults who are mentally stable can tell the difference between fantasy and real life, they're not going to play a war game and suddenly think the horrors of real War are somehow more acceptable. I do have an open mind though and would be willing to change my mind on that given someone did a good study and provided evidence for it. That is absolutely key when making these kind of observations.

 

[ImpulsE69]

It's worth gathering some data to back these claims. I've read quite a few studies over the years that claim games and TV/Movies cause violence, desensitize us to certain things or cause us blur the lines between fantasy and reality. And they've all shown that actually none of those things are true.

Adults who are mentally stable can tell the difference between fantasy and real life, they're not going to play a war game and suddenly think the horrors of real War are somehow more acceptable. I do have an open mind though and would be willing to change my mind on that given someone did a good study and provided evidence for it. That is absolutely key when making these kind of observations.

Agreed. It's been studied many times over the years and there's never been any kind of link found. The interesting thing about it though is that real combat training is made into 'games' and 'fun' so that soldiers just perform. Art simulating life simulating art....etc. I would guess that many people who excel at strategic games or combat games would do well in war situations (given normal health, etc that plays into it).

 

[Craig234]

It's worth gathering some data to back these claims. I've read quite a few studies over the years that claim games and TV/Movies cause violence, desensitize us to certain things or cause us blur the lines between fantasy and reality. And they've all shown that actually none of those things are true.

Adults who are mentally stable can tell the difference between fantasy and real life, they're not going to play a war game and suddenly think the horrors of real War are somehow more acceptable. I do have an open mind though and would be willing to change my mind on that given someone did a good study and provided evidence for it. That is absolutely key when making these kind of observations.

I doubt this is well suited to a study because it's about more subtle influences. The studies I know of are misguided, studying things like 'playing fps makes you violent', which isn't correct.

 

[Craig234]

Agreed. It's been studied many times over the years and there's never been any kind of link found. The interesting thing about it though is that real combat training is made into 'games' and 'fun' so that soldiers just perform. Art simulating life simulating art....etc. I would guess that many people who excel at strategic games or combat games would do well in war situations (given normal health, etc that plays into it).

Another issue with training is that historically, the natural human repulsion to commit violence has led to most soldiers not shooting to kill. WWII was found to have most soldiers not shoot to kill. So they changed the training to get shooting to kill made into an automatic response that bypasses the part of the brain that was making them question it and not kill, and not it's over 99% trying to kill.

 

[Selena Anderson]

War games only teach you a little bit about history nothing more, except you had zombie apocalypse and you had old WWII weapons to use

 

[PrincessFrosty]

Agreed. It's been studied many times over the years and there's never been any kind of link found. The interesting thing about it though is that real combat training is made into 'games' and 'fun' so that soldiers just perform. Art simulating life simulating art....etc. I would guess that many people who excel at strategic games or combat games would do well in war situations (given normal health, etc that plays into it).

Very possibly. I shot guns for the first time last year, first clay pigeon shooting which I was exceedingly good at, hit my first 4-6 in a row having never shot a shotgun before. Then we went to Vegas and did a WW2 package in the shooting range and I was quite a decent shot with the Garand, 1911 and even the Thompson burst/full auto. Things like breath control, zeroing and all that kinda stuff is 2nd nature to a gamer.

We also did a laser quest tag thing a bunch of us for the first time about 2 years ago and did really well in that as well, coordiating with friends you've played war games with before is exceptionally easy, none of us have ever explicitly learned combat tactics properly but we can immediately use hand signals to coordinate and do flanking maneuvers without really needing to think about it or discuss it, it's just obvious.

The American armies experiments with America's Army the quite realistic shooter was also interesting, essentially a recruiting tool.

 

[Stg-Flame]

I played AA for a long time. It was far from realistic and the recruiting was on par with what you'd see from any of the "Go Army" ads on various websites.

 

[OCNewbie]

If a man masturbates and thinks of another woman while doing it, does that mean that'll lead him to cheating on his wife? That answer would be a no for me.

The same thing can be applied to escaping reality in a video game and pretending you're in a battle, or whatnot. It's just an escape, and doesn't mean that there's good reason to believe it'll lead to actually emulating this fantasy in real life.

 

[Craig234]

If a man masturbates and thinks of another woman while doing it, does that mean that'll lead him to cheating on his wife? That answer would be a no for me.

The same thing can be applied to escaping reality in a video game and pretending you're in a battle, or whatnot. It's just an escape, and doesn't mean that there's good reason to believe it'll lead to actually emulating this fantasy in real life.

That is one horrible analogy having basically nothing to do with the topic.

 

[rumpleforeskin]

That is one horrible analogy having basically nothing to do with the topic.

I can agree that is one horrible analogy, but struggle with your judgement that it has "basically nothing to do with the topic"

It seems right on topic for the original post, which could be summed up without all the fancy words as "allowing a fantasy of a situation to exist will promote the situation to exist in reality"

 

[Stg-Flame]

Yea, I got the same vibe from the OP that they have a hard time differentiating fantasy from reality. Even if war games are based on real events and real places and even use real names, it's still just a video game.

 

[OCNewbie]

That is one horrible analogy having basically nothing to do with the topic.

I honestly didn't read your entire OP. I read the second post in the thread. I suppose I assumed that user read your entire OP, and I used his post as a summary of what was in the OP. That's what I based my comment on.

 

[PlanetJosh]

Craig234 you mentioned about games: "how to have them not make war more likely," and about gamers' claims that games don't cause real violence: "But that doesn't mean they don't have some effects."

It's a noble cause to try to use games to make war less likely. Imagine if it had succeeded decades ago, it could have affected the way whole counties and their governments think about international relationships. It would've probably started at home meaning less oppression against one's own people. And that could've lead to less wars. I'm being sincere not sarcastic.

If I went overboard about interpreting your wishes for games then I can back off of it. But if you say I went too far in my description remember that part of the reason for your post it would seem is the pervasiveness or popularity of video games. With something that popular why not envision it as a means to change the world by significantly helping to reduce war? If that's the way you see it then fine. Judging by history, however, I don't think it's likely to succeed and I can explain some more about that.

What about the history of games affecting or not affecting attitudes about war? Could the whole historical picture affect your post in some way? Here's an example: Jousting games and swordplay games in the Middle Ages. Maybe some parents tried to discourage their family members from attending jousting games. And tried to stop them from swordplay games in the back yard fearing such games would cause them to like war.

Swordplay games back then could've been very popular. We don't know for sure if such games were not as popular as video games are today. And families didn't need to be wired, they could just go outside and engage in some pretty realistic simulations with wooden swords and maybe even the real deal in swords.

So my point about the Middle Ages is since the debate about games and attitudes toward real war has been around for ages why hasn't anyone been able to use games to help reduce wars? Could it be that most people have always been and continue to be inherently just a little bit bad, that is just bad enough to have unhealthy attitudes toward war? And those attitudes could be a big reason for wars in the first place? I'm talking about the general population of countries and their governments, not just their governments.

Ok games may still be used someday to change those attitudes for the better and lessen the number of wars. But looking at history what are chances of it succeeding?

About the issue of whether or not games cause real violence or if they have some effects, what about the violent crimes rate in the U.S.? It's gone down noticeably since the 1990s. Yes in some cases maybe games have a bad effect on some people.

With those statistics, however, it seems the argument could be made that games are not a significant issue when it comes to violent crime in the U.S. I have a feeling you are going to cite something to negate my interpretation of those rates so I'll try to be ready for it. It may have already been brought up in the thread, I haven't read every post yet but I did read a lot of them.

 

[Craig234]

Josh, thanks for the very good, thoughtful post.

I don't think analogies to the middle ages are very relevant, because the things influencing the thinking of society about war, and the influence society had on war, are so drastically changed.

Back then, the people had little say on the issue, and war was generally seen as the way for the society to thrive - against demonized enemies. There were a lot more religious influences on it as well - things like martyrs serving the cause. There just couldn't be a lot of questioning - it was equivalent to questioning the loyalty to the crown and country - and the people didn't get to vote.

Barbarity was rampant against the 'savages' - look at how the European colonists treated the indigenous people, torture and killing and rape and slavery were fine, and it was seen as 'civilizing'.

For an analogy, consider how society's views have changed on something like slavery - showing that yes, views can change.

I think that views of war absolutely can be changed and that the absence of much of that influence - there are a few classic works such as 'The Red Badge of Courage' that try to do that - doesn't mean it couldn't happen.

War is horror - yet so many positives are involved, the sense of victory and power and 'glory' and claims of self-defense and much more, that the inclination is to romanticize it, with tragic result.

Remember what advocates of the Iraq war said?

That long enough had passed since Vietnam that we could stop being concerned about the lessons from it, and do it again. And they were right that the lessons are forgotten.

I'm not sure why you ended with the topic I had excluded, the claim about 'direct' links to violence.

There are various reasons for those changes, it's a different issue, and I don't think games are much involved in the issue causing more or less crime.

 

[PlanetJosh]

Craig234 after I reread my last paragraph in my long post it looks like I overreached in my theory. I implied that you believe games are a major reason for real violence and that's not what you said. You simply said it doesn't mean games don't have any effect.

Looks like I repeated what others accused you of and I shouldn't have gone there. I was doing so well I thought, until my last paragraph. Well then, drop the last paragraph off my long post and let's all continue from there.

And in case you're wondering about my most people are a little bit bad comment, yes I think most people in the general population are bad. And that's the reason imo for wars. I didn't address whether or not games instilled the bad characteristics of people aside from the last paragraph in my previous post. But we're dropping that paragraph anyway right? I tend to think games are not the reason for it now or hundreds of years ago.

Edit, well I did touch on it a bit in my Middle Ages segment where I talked about parents worrying if family members were being badly influenced by swordplay games. And I imagine the family members answered back to their parents that it's no different than military training. And that they're just practicing in the backyard to prepare for the defense of their country in the event of invasion. I'm not saying today's video military games can work in the same way.

 

[Craig234]

Craig234 after I reread my last paragraph in my long post it looks like I overreached in my theory. I implied that you believe games are a major reason for real violence and that's not what you said. You simply said it doesn't mean games don't have any effect.

Looks like I repeated what others accused you of and I shouldn't have gone there. I was doing so well I thought, until my last paragraph. Well then, drop the last paragraph off my long post and let's all continue from there.

And in case you're wondering about my most people are a little bit bad comment, yes I think most people in the general population are bad. And that's the reason imo for wars. I didn't address whether or not games instilled the bad characteristics of people aside from the last paragraph in my previous post. But we're dropping that paragraph anyway right? I tend to think games are not the reason for it now or hundreds of years ago.

Edit, well I did touch on it a bit in my Middle Ages segment where I talked about parents worrying if family members were being badly influenced by swordplay games. And I imagine the family members answered back to their parents that it's no different than military training. And that they're just practicing in the backyard to prepare for the defense of their country in the event of invasion. I'm not saying today's video military games can work in the same way.

Thanks for the comments.

I don't think the issue is 'causation' of things - the simple notion of things in the game being repeated.

It's more an issue of how they affect people's view of war or other things. I'll go back to the analogy of slavery - when it existed, many people had a hard time thinking any other option was possible. It was simply how things were and quite normal, and people were blinded to seeing the system as harmful though it was right in front of them.

And people can view war as something very horrific that they have to try a hundred times more to prevent than they do now - or they can view it as 'normal'. and think more about 'how to win it' than how to prevent it.

The simple act of enjoying years of wargaming can reinforce to people to think more of the 'art' of war and to view it as just a normal human activity and justified and inevitable and not to think of really challenging and opposing it when it happens in real life, rather thank thinking of it as about as horrific as, say, having 'rape day' one day a year where rape is legal.

I don't think we have wars so much because of the problems people have, but rather because powerful interests want them and the people don't resist enough.

"Nazi leader Hermann Goering, interviewed by Gustave Gilbert during
the Easter recess of the Nuremberg trials, 1946 April 18, quoted in
Gilbert's book 'Nuremberg Diary.'

Goering: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some
poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that
he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece.

Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in
England, nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is
understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who
determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the
people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or
a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.

Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy the people have some
say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the
United States only Congress can declare wars.

Goering: Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the
bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them
they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of
patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in
any country."

 

[ImpulsE69]

The problem is slavery still exists, even if it isn't 100% the same context as all out American slavery.

In the same vein just because one country says 'we won't fight' doesn't mean no one will come for them. Remember how we didn't want to join the war back in the day? That didn't work out so well. Many of these same solutions echo to many other topics. You can wish for no war, no guns, etc...but at the end of the day, it isn't the reality we live in. Maybe in 100's of years it is something that can be accomplished, but it would take the entire world being on the same page, and that happens VERY rarely. We can't even agree on little simple things like what to name a boat. Think about our relationship with Russia and how it is back to being tense again. It just takes 1 major player changing people to completely turn the tide. The masses do not have as much say as we'd like to think.

 

[Regs]

War games are building the next virtual workforce. Team based tactics that when best working together using each others roles and strengths make the best outcome. Instead of individualism competitiveness, you come to realize that good team play, communication, and informal leadership goes a long way. The other team is who you are competing against as how the real world should work. One our current issues today is that we're competing against each other and not our external threats. Until we can find a leader that can bring everyone together, we're simply not moving efficiently enough.

War games simply make an objective bigger than your own interests in perspective. More or less like the real thing. It's not intending to bring a message that war is always the answer to every international issue. If you peal back the thin vale, war games actually resemble a lot of how our modern society is developing.

 

[Stg-Flame]

The problem is slavery still exists, even if it isn't 100% the same context as all out American slavery.

Just throwing it out there (since so many people forget) but America wasn't the first country to enslave another race and we definitely weren't the last. Hell, we weren't even the worst ones when talking about slavery but it seems every time the word "slave" pops up, everyone refers to early American history.