War Machine Video Games...

[AssVas]

Ena ar8ro pou diavasa k lew na to diavasete k seis...

http://www.ferrago.com/story/7515

In the first of ongoing series of weekly columns, Germany-based games journalist Stevie Smith will be looking at the controversial, topical and surprising issues that effect the gaming world today. Some of Stevie's subjects may surprise you, but as gaming edges ever closer to becoming 'art' in the eyes of many, videogames will increasingly reside in the spotlight, often for the wrong reasons. We hope you find this new series of opinion pieces thought-provoking.

In a western gaming market where modern military propaganda is seemingly placed side by side with the latest cutesy Animal Crossing release, are we presently in an era of (not so) subtle battlefield indoctrination preceding the ominous knock of the recruitment drive? Furthermore, considering the influential power of the videogames industry, can we truly claim a state of blissful ignorance as the armed forces stealthily infiltrate our beloved pastime arena with their own covert interests and hidden agendas? Knowing that realistic gaming franchises such as Full Spectrum Warrior and Conflict: Desert Storm exist as both vague training simulation and politically incorrect backslapping ventures, do we have a right to condemn the existence of a terrorist-funded 'resistance fighter' videogame?

Historically 'accurate' war games are undeniably tasteless and offensive. Have any passed through my software collection? Yes, more than I care to mention. Is one of them based around the recent international excursions in Iraq? Yes, I have owned one of the Conflict series games. Did I subsequently harbour any self-imposed guilt regarding this title's inclusion to my videogame collection? No, I'm sad to say that I did not. Bearing this in mind, how long should game developers wait before deeming it socially and politically acceptable to produce titles referencing historic atrocities? Fifteen years? Have the Iraqi people forgotten the events of 1991 already? Thirty-five years? Perhaps the Vietnamese are suffering with a sudden bout of war-related amnesia? How about sixty years then?

From an ethical and moral standpoint, it's never the right time, but that's unlikely to prevent historic war games from finding a way into millions of homes around the globe. Some people would contest the relevance of this argument, given that violent war-themed gaming products have been available to the public since as far back as the 1980s. They have a valid point. Games such as Beachhead and Commando were major titles back in the days of the Commodore 64. PC battle simulations like Falcon and Gunship also existed as examples of early military-based combat; and they pre-date today's games by well over a decade. However, the major difference between the products of yesteryear, as apposed to those just beyond the evolutionary bell curve, is the advancement of gaming technology. Visually, we could never be appalled or disgusted by the likes of Commando. Its game engine was laughably simplistic, and the on-screen characterizations were barely recognizable as human, let alone their nationality and gender specification. The D-Day levels seen in Medal of Honor and, most recently, Call of Duty 2 are both shockingly far removed from games such as Commando or Beachhead.

Videogames have transcended all possible expectation to such a degree that branches of the military are now enlisting development studios to produce 'training simulations' for their troops. This is a far cry from the 1980s. M1 Tank Platoon was a combat-simulator videogame produced by Microprose in 1989 and, at that time, its developers weren't even granted access by the US Army to study the inside of an actual tank. The emergence of Sony's PlayStation, and the distinct progression in realistic 3D environments, saw a sudden change of tactical approach by the armed forces. In 1997, the Marine Corp signed on with MAK Technologies to produce Spearhead; the very first combat-simulation videogame co-funded and co-developed by the Department of Defence. This was to be the dawning of a new age in military/entertainment industry collaboration.

The Tom Clancy gaming series has proved popular in military circles; both Rainbow Six: Rogue Spear and Rainbow Six: Raven Shield were drafted into service to provide troops with training in urban terrain combat. The US Army also signed There Inc. in a $3.5 million deal to realize a 3D creation of Kuwait to help train towards the defence of the US Embassy in the capital. The US Navy also directly assisted Sony in its production of SOCOM II: US Navy Seals, and 2002 saw the launch of America's Army, a training and combat videogame that came free to potential recruits either as an on-line download or through recruiting stations. Of course, America's Army has now reached retail shelves via Ubisoft, and smacks heavily of 'Hey, being a soldier is, like, the coolest!' in terms of portrayal. This is no longer a gaming world populated by armchair-bound enthusiasts and bespectacled, angst-ridden, teenagers. Beyond the direct consumer, the aforementioned games have provided tangible combat training for enlisted military personnel. That, within itself, is a terrifying nugget of knowledge.

So where do the defining lines of war and entertainment meet? Or are they, in fact, blurring wildly over each other? Full Spectrum Warrior exists as the most recognized and high profile (military-sponsored) combat simulator to hit retail, but can we classify it as videogame entertainment? Developed beneath the guiding scrutiny of personnel at the Army's Infantry School at Fort Benning, Georgia, Full Spectrum Warrior promised to deliver a gaming experience where the player assumed the role of an Army light infantry squad leader conducting operations in the fictitious and terrorist-infested nation of Tazikhstan. Yet, for all the gusto, Full Spectrum Warrior's gameplay leant far closer to repetitive simulation than player-centred interactivity. Under the light of present international political and military 'tensions' between the US and Middle East, doesn't Full Spectrum Warrior resemble yet another carefully-engineered cog in the propaganda machine?

No? Well how about Kuma War? Developed by Kuma Reality Games, which gleefully offer: "Playable re-creations of real war events released weeks after they occur. Accurate missions developed in advanced war game and distributed free online." Missions such as the US raid in Mosul, which ended in the deaths of Saddam Hussein's two sons. The authentic combat operations are resplendent with boosted levels of realism and the whole development process is monitored by a team of veteran military advisors striving to ensure the missions are re-created to the highest level of possible realism. Now, I'm not a huge fan of Saddam's well-publicised dictatorship, or the Hussein family in general, but taking part in a gaming mission where I can directly influence the eventual deaths of his sons? Can anyone deny this takes us into distinctly distasteful territory?

Could the subject matter in this article become any more contentious? I'm afraid so. Hezbollah (a Lebanese 'group' included on the US Terror List) have released their own realistic combat videogame in an attempt to address what they see as an imbalance portrayed by western developers and their oppressive attitude towards Arab nations. Special Force is a three-level training simulation that re-creates actual attacks on Israeli targets, and includes a pre-game sharpshooter tutorial where players get to kill Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon - as well as other prominent political Israeli figures. The Special Force website (presently inaccessible) proudly states the "Special Force game will render you a partner of the resistance." It's already sold in excess of 10,000 copies in Lebanon since its release and, more worryingly, it's also shipped modest unit amounts to Britain, mainland Europe, and especially Germany. Mahmoud Rayya of the Hezbollah Central Internet Bureau (responsible for Special Force) is quoted as saying: "In a way, Special Force offers mental and personal training for those who play it, allowing them to feel that they are in the shoes of the resistance fighters." Although we can perhaps question the moral implications of Special Force, is it really so different from the likes of America's Army? Are they not both merely simplistic training tools and propaganda devices?

'But Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, though! What they're doing is sick and twisted and evil!' Many among you will feel this instantaneous reaction, but don't forget that to those fighting for their beliefs in resistance groups such as Hezbollah, we are the terrorists. The US and UK are seen as the main offenders when it comes to global oppression masked with questionable intent. How do you think Iraqis reacted to the release of Conflict: Desert Storm? Or how do they feel seeing approved US military training simulations where they, as a people, are endlessly portrayed through stereotype as little more than savages with an insatiable blood lust?

Do we really need military sponsored combat training simulations where the player is immersed into a disturbingly accurate three-dimensional world and expected to perfect the art of conflict as the ONLY solution? Privately developed and exclusively used military simulation programs are one thing; training is of paramount importance to the survival and evolution of recruited personnel. However, it is not something that should be readily available for the consuming masses, at least in my opinion.



By Stevie Smith