Reading 6
Reading 6 due Thurs, Nov 15th - War Games
From Sun Tzu to Xbox, Ed Halter
An overview of war and video games
EdHalter_intro.pdf
EdHalter_TheDreamWar.pdf
Extra credit - art projects responding to video games about war and combat
EdHalter_ArtofWar.pdf
Reading response questions:
1. Give an example of an early video game that was transformed into a military training tool. Describe the process.
2. How do video games affect American’s perception of war?
3. What is the role of fantasy in both commercial war games and military training programs?
4. How do you feel about the military using video games as a marketing tool?
12 Comments
Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI
Leave a comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
1. According to the reading the Atari game “Battle Zone” was modified at the request of the military to be transformed into a training tool that became known as “Army Battle Zone.” In the original game it was a generalized battle experience that offered the illusions of warring tools to use in the fight against the “other.” The military saw potential in the construct of the game and requested to use it in a modified version as a training tool fort he Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle. Atari agreed to make the modifications and in three months had a version that offered a more accurate portrayal of the Bradley vehicle including its rotation, vision and rounds requirements. It even had its own special joystick designed specifically for its use. In the end it was not used and fell into obscurity.
2. Games affect Americans perceptions of war by creating fantasy based ideals of fighting that allow for video game players to see actualities of war on a screen and have the experience of killing without the repercussions or the experience of pain themselves. The games themselves reinforce this idea of war as an unreality where no real lives are lost and no one gets hurt. There are no consequences.
3. The role of fantasy in commercial use games and military games is that it builds through the game interaction a sense of self-accomplishment and strength in the player without affecting their health in any way. It builds confidence without exposing anyone the actualities of what they are playing with.
4. I feel distraught that the prevailing element in video games is war and violence. It is disturbing to me that these are things that are promoted in our culture as entertaining for people of any age. With that said though, I can hardly blame the military for taking this and using it to their advantage. While the idea of it is disgusting to me, the fact is that they have created a brilliant PR campaign that has found large amounts of success. It is not like they made the concept of violent war video games themselves. It existed already to a degree. They are simply using it for their own message now. I would like to see a better use of games though. If it is that easy to subvert this message of violence to thousands of gamers what else could be done in the same way? If a medium like video games has this much potential to be used for this outlet, could it not also be used to convey other messages?
1): One of the Earliest Video Games that was transformed into a military training tool was Battlezone. Basically, the game was a great success and so the military saw that as a way to hold a trainee’s interest through what might be considered boring work. They then approach the company in question and buy a re-write of the game. His particular game ended up never being used for training, and supposedly only a small handful of machines were even made.
2): According to Halter, the perception of war is altered via the saturation and immersion of games in that people begin to think of war as a game. This becomes problematic because it devalues the sacrifice of the real people in the trenches while at the same time blurring or removing the idea of consequences and blurring the line between real and fantasy.
3): The consequences have been removed or rather any real life-threatening and permanent consequences are removed. It therefore allows for a better training experience in that you can not have to worry about actually dying while you are training.
4): I believe many things. I believe that statistics can be manipulated into saying anything we need them to say to help prove our point. I believe that the military system we have in place needs to join the modern age in campaigning itself. If this means jumping into the wagon with games then that is certainly a valid idea. I believe in the necessity of our standing military even though I think it is being horribly abused right now, and therefore I see the Military using video games as recruitment as a good thing. It is my experience that aside from a few cases most people who join don’t do so based solely on the game. They have researched things through and see the money available for college, or they see it as a way to get better training, and they are mostly intelligent people, fully cognizant of what it is they are doing. In the end the system is still voluntary.
Katerina
1. Battlezone was one of the 1st games to be turned into a military training simulator. The military wanted to use the game to train tank operators. For the game to be turned into a simulator the game models had to be redesigned and weapons were added that were based on real weapons along with the physics of those weapons. The opposing enemy was turned into Soviets instead of aliens. Also a new controller was specially designed to play the game.
2.The reading talks about how war video games almost desensitize war and killing, and make war seem like a game. A gamer might play something like Americas Army where being in the army seems like a cool thing but in a game you don’t get hurt for real and if you die you can restart. So people join the army based on the experience from game even though it’s not necessary how it really is. The reading also says how soldiers call the opposing enemy “bad guys” such as they are called in video games. While in video the “bad guys” are almost always evil, it isn’t always the case in the real world.
3. The role of fantasy in war games is to be able to experience a battle, shoot, and kill without any harm to the player. The games and programs are also used for the purpose of training things such as tactics and teamwork within fantasy environment so then the player/soldier can then be more ready for the real thing. Both commercial games and military training programs try to simulate reality as much as possible so it’s more of a realistic fantasy. Then if a player does want experience the real thing they can join the army.
4. Its like with any company trying to sell something in our society. People should know by now that everything is made to look better then it might actually be or exaggerated in some way. The viewer should always question what is presented by the media. Though I think its better that they try to recruit people through advertising then through a draft because that way it is voluntary.
Ashley
1.The Atari game known as “Battle Zone” is an example of an early video game that was transformed into a military training tool. After the military approached Atari, it was modified to train gun shooters in tanks. The original game differs from the original because it features helicopters, missiles, and machine guns. Additionally, the actual tank does not move - the guns simply rotate. Atari built a prototype which was then shown at a national conference. They changed the controls to feel more like the controls inside the tank.
2. The video games lessen the significance of war to the level of a video game. The army is avoiding the fact that you are going out and killing people for real, not imaginary characters. War is being turned into a game which, obviously, it’s not. There is no real experience being undertaken by a user and is therefore terribly unrealistic.
3. In a commercial war game, fantasy is about being able to be in a situation without and penalty. When you die, you don’t die in real life, and when you kill people, they’re not real people. People create a character with actions they would not normally consider because there are no consequences. In a training tool, you’re going to be more strict about the actions you take. You’re going to take it seriously and do everything you can do to stay alive or do the right thing in certain situations.
4. I don’t think they should use videos games as a marketing tool because – as stated above — they are lessening the significance to the level of a video game. People they target are around the age of being able to be recruited and are still naïve. The army is avoiding the fact that you are going out and killing people for real, not imaginary characters. War is being turned into a game which, obviously, it’s not. There is no real experience being undertaken by a user and is therefore terribly unrealistic. I’m sure being in the army isn’t all ‘wicked cool’ as it sounds.
1. Give an example of an early video game that was transformed into a military training tool. Describe the process.
The reading discusses Battlezone, so I guess we’re going with Battlezone here. Seeing an opportunity to exploit a popular game to safely and inexpensively train troops, the military approached Atari for a modified version of Battlezone. The original weapons were replaced with more realistic weapons with more realistic limits, enemy aliens were substituted with opposing forces, and a custom controller was built to play the game. Unsurprisingly, the game was never actually put into practice for training.
2. How do video games affect American’s perception of war?
I think the idea of video games “desensitizing” people to war is a crock. War movies were being made long before war based video games became popular. The argument of interactivity making it more immersive and therefore “worse” doesn’t hold up either. Kids have been playing Army for as long as war stories have glorified their protagonists. As cynical as I may be about humanity on the whole, we’re in much worse shape than even I imagine if more than a few people are unable to distinguish between Call of Duty and our military engagements overseas.
3. What is the role of fantasy in both commercial war games and military training programs?
Fantasy is employed to thrust individuals that are most likely not fully prepared for an actual combat situation into such a situation without any real danger. It’s a decent enough concept, but you have to remember that people will generally be more likely to take a risk if the consequence is starting from the beginning of the level rather than attending your own funeral.
4. How do you feel about the military using video games as a marketing tool?
I don’t mind it. It’s not like they’re forcing players to enlist. Army enrollment is lower than it could be, and if a video game is what it takes to drum up some cursory interest in joining the Army, so be it.
1. Battlezone is the game mentioned in the reading. The way it was changed was through modification of weaponry, opponents, and controls. These were all changed to fit the specific needs of the army.
2. Video games are based in virtual reality, so it makes war seem to be a fantasy to most americans. Most things that happen in a video game war simply wouldnt happen in a real war. For example, in most video games you play the roll of a hero who saves the entire war or does some sort of heroic thing. Most of the time in a real war most foot soldiers will just be among the dead, not of the heroic. War games seem to make real wars seem unrealistic, almost giving the feeling of invulnerability to those who play it.
3. The fantasy aspect of both commercial games and training simulations is much the same. Both give the player a way to go through an experience with no real consequence, or injury. Most situations depicted in games would result in injury, but the fantasy aspect allows a player to simply start over.
4. The army using video games as a marketing tool is not necessarily a bad thing. Its an outlet for the army to use that reaches a large number of people. It also is better than them forcing a draft onto young people. If people go out and buy the video game that promotes war then they are going to be interested in it.
-Scott
1. One of the first video games that was modified for the military was Doom. It was modified for the maries and aptly named “Marine Doom”. The military claims that Marine Doom, and games like it, are important training tools for creating teamwork and coordination skills. The gameplay of Doom did not have to be drastically modified to suit the marines needs. Modifications came in the form of aesthetics, not gameplay. For example, the creators had to replace the monsters that were in the original with enemy soldiers. Quake is another example of a game that has been modified as a training simulation for the military. Since the source code for the game is openly available the military or a kid sitting in from of a computer can take that code and modify it any way they want to. Military Forces Quake 3 (or MFQ3 for short) is a mod of Quake 3 that adds features like tanks, helicopters, field plans and the ability to command troops.
2. Militaristic video games affect American’s perceptions of war by creating this sense that war is fun and strategic and builds the sense of self-enpowerment. Video games do not have the same consequences of real war. Without these consequences, war is fun because no one dies and heroes are born. Therefore, the subconscious perception is altered but people still know the actualities of war.
3. The role of fantasy is to get the player immersed in the game that they are playing. Agency in a game plays a huge role in this immersion factor. Agency in a game is when a player does something they expect that thing to happen inside the game and when it does, there is a sense of agency and this leads to immersion. For example, if a player shoots a bot in the game, they expect to virtually hurt that bot. This gets them in this role of a soldier or the role for whatever the fantasy of this game is about. Now that the player is in this role they can carry out the story of a heroic patriotic soldier who is carrying out his duty on the battlefield. If there was no fantasy in the game there would be this disconnect between the player and what he is playing and there would be little or no emotional affect (commercial war game) or strategic information learned (military training programs).
4. One argument people have against these games is that they lead to real world violence. Here is a mapping of an article I read and my argument as to why I believe that these games are not training us to be violent.
“Representation, Enaction, and the Ethics of Simulation” by Simon Penny (Mapping) and argument (in “Why Doesn’t the Army Teach Acting?” section)
Intro:
Says this article will talk about the effect that simulations have on the users of those simulations behaviors. Also, three areas will be addressed: interactive entertainment, professional simulator training, and learning of bodily disciplines and regimines of behavior.
Body Training:
Body training is the cultural training of people by the use of physical imitation. It is learned without conscious intellectual understanding. For example, martial arts and military training is anti-intellectuality. The training is only successful when it becomes a reflex and that is something that is subconscious.
The Military-Entertainment Complex:
The military uses computer simulated environments for bodily training and this has also been affective in phycotherapy. STOW (Synthetic Theater of War) is a synthetic battlespace used for training in large military exercises. The military has invested millions into training simulators like this and Penny is saying that this is proof that the simulation transfers to the real world. Some people like Lantz and Zimmerman, a couple game designers, argue that these simulations and games (Quake) are more training hand eye coordination than a way to desensitize the soldiers. Grossman argues that the material of games like Quake are training not only hand-eye coordination but “to kill every living creature in front of you” until you run our of targets or bullets.
Simulation and Metaphorization
Games that are simulations are representations of the real world. It is easy to enter this simulated world in most games because the interaction between it and the user is so direct (click of a mouse results in an explosion). Because of this ease of navigation and interaction, it does not take much imagination to get caught up in the simulation.
Why Theories of Visual Representation Are Inadequate
We, as humans, are learned or trained to behave a certain way not only by what we see, but by what we see and interact with. In simulators and games the user is trained to act a certain way because they are seeing their behaviors affect the images being displayed to them and then in return, they are affected by those images. “Whatever the power of images, interactive media is more. Not “just a picture,” it is an interactive picture that responds to my actions.”
Interactive Art and Antisocial Behavior
Interaction with an image that requires more physical action that corresponds to the real world creates behaviors that a static image or even a movie does not.
Why Doesn’t the Army Teach Acting?
There is an argument that compares acting to training in simulated worlds and that actors who play killers do not actually become killers. The reason is that actors are making an illusion for the audience and it is in no way for the actor. The training soldier “indulges in a persuasive illusion in order to become better at fighting a war, killing and surviving: a distinctly nonillusory experience.”
MY ARGUMENT (Violent games do not lead to violence):
This is where I believe his whole argument that violent games lead to violent behavior in the real world falls apart. The soldier has conscious INTENT on actually killing people in the real world and is using the simulation to help them do that. The typical gamer does not have this intent to kill real people and to argue that the games create some sort of subconscious behavior or reflex (like with martial art training) that is dangerous is irrational. First, in order for someone to mix up their conscious and subconscious, they would have to be clinically insane. Therefore, only the insane and the person who actually consciously intends on killing another person will have any violent real-world use for what violent games train them to do. Any other person may get the hand-eye coordination, the ability to use a weapon, the strategic understanding from the game but without the intent of actually using these abilities then there is no threat that the gamer will kill or become violent in the real-world. I am not disagreeing that simulation and interaction are powerful tools for training and I am not disagreeing that games also train the gamer, I am saying that these skills are only useful in the real-world to the people that actually intend on using them. However, I do agree that violent games should be kept away from children because they may not fully see the distinction between what is acceptable in the real world and in a game. Also, a child is easily influenced by everything around them. However, with some guidance from a parent or some other adult, I also think a violent game would be fine for a child. I think whether or not a person becomes violent depends on the way that they were raised or any real world experiences that have happened to them. Suggesting that a game could influence a rational grown adult is not giving enough credit to people’s ability to distinguish between what is real and what is virtual.
Serious Play
In this section he argues that subconscious behaviors that are created by a game can transfer to the real world, if triggered. The behavior is triggered “in situations which resemble the visual context or emotional tenor of the gameplay.”
ARGUMENT CONTINUED:
I would also have to agree that this may be possible because it seems like a rational argument. However, if you take a game like Quake, how often are you going to be in a situation that resembles what is going on in that game. If aliens invade our planet then maybe these kids who play Quake will be very helpful to our country. This can be said about almost every violent video game. Unless the person is a soldier or is in some other sort of violent environment, then that person is not going to see anything that resembles the gameplay of a violent video game.
So, with all that said, I have no problem with the military using video games as advertising. I myself play a few of these games and I enjoy them. However, I feel no passion in joining the military and I believe strongly that war is disgusting and that it should not exist. I enjoy these games because of the gameplay, i.e. the testing of my hand eye coordination, the aesthetics of the games and figuring out strategies. As I said in my argument, I think intent is what comes into play when we talk about video games as training players to become killers. Unless the intent to kill in reality is already there within a persons ideals, they are not going to be influenced by a video game to kill someone. The only thing that bugs me with using video games as a marketing tool for the military is that they don’t clearly show the consequences of being in a war and more specifically the consequence of death. However, if someone joins the military without knowing this consequence beforehand, perhaps that is Darwin’s Theory at work.
1. Give an example of an early video game that was transformed into a military training tool. Describe the process.
“Battlezone” was an early video game produced by Atari which was converted into a military training tool for Bradley tanks. Because the game was a tank simulation, the army found it suitable for their purposes. The creator of the game converted it by using real data such as the physics of real weapons, imagery which was taken from and would represent the “enemy,” and controls. The old arcade controls were swapped for an H-shaped “yoke” control, which replicated the actual tank’s controls. The game was also renamed “Army Battlezone.”
2. How do video games affect American’s perception of war?
Video games affect Americans’ perception of war by creating an emphasis on the positive aspects of war: by playing the game, you can attain glory. You can save someone’s life and defend your country. You can be heroic and respected, all without the consequences that come with being an actual soldier.
3. What is the role of fantasy in both commercial war games and military training programs?
In commercial war games and military training programs, fantasy serves to stimulate the player to achieve particular goals. They stress the importance of being heroic and part of the team, striving toward the ultimate goal. The player or participant can attain a sort of “flow” in the game or activity and become more involved - whether they actually are in reality or not, they can become a soldier for a moment and experience what life is like on the battlefield without the consequences of injury or death. In this way, the fantasy aspect demonstrates all the “better” qualities of being a solider, because the negative outcomes are eliminated. You only see the best outcomes - winning the battle, conquering the enemy - because the negatives, like death, are eliminated and quickly bypassed to get back into the game. Fantasy allows the player to start over and over and over again until they achieve the most desirable goal.
4. How do you feel about the military using video games as a marketing tool?
I am personally somewhat disturbed by the military’s use of video games as a marketing tool. I have had access to video games since I was a very young child, and for me they have always been an escape or a fantasy. Despite being twenty-one years old, they give me a purpose (or possibly an excuse) to escape into that pretend-world that children freely inhabit. So, if I want to play a relatively innocent game of Mario and momentarily slide into that world, I can. Alternately, if I want to be more aggressive and play a few rounds of Halo, I can take on that role for a time. When I feel like being a pirate, I can start up Eve-Online and ransom other players to my heart’s content. All the while, I’m able to remove myself from these fantasies at will. They’re like toys - I can pick them up and play for a while, but in the end put them back in the box and that ends the game. When the military uses games to try and convince me to become a soldier in real life, I feel as though they’ve invaded some aspect of my own private space by entering my fantasy and bringing along the real-world baggage that accompanies their message. All I wanted was a few moments of experience as a soldier; I’d never want to do this in real life.
1. An early game used by the military to train soldiers was the game “Battle Zone”. By modifying the main aspects of the game like making weapons more realistic, models more realistic and making the game more subtle for basic training.
2. History is told by the victors so by having a video game about a war we were in is pretty cool. I loved hearing stories from my grandfather about what he did in the war and being able to play though some of his experiences is awesome. I know its nowhere near the real thing of what he experienced but I can get an idea. The industry tends to only make games based on wars we won or some imaginary war they make up. Game developers tend to make games based on wars we won or some imaginary war they make up. I cant seem to recall their being any Vietnam games…..I wonder why?
3. Military games use fantasy as a way to desensitize the player. They make the game focus on you. By doing this it makes it seem like your every move is so much more important. This could help into making it easier for the real thing.
4. I’m fine with the military using games as a marketing tool. It’s not hurting anyone if you want enroll then do so. It’s up to the player to decide to what extent they be immersed into the game and if you cant get back to reality after playing then maybe you should stay away from the army games.
1. An early game used by the military to train soldiers was the game “Battle Zone”. By modifying the main aspects of the game like making weapons more realistic, models more realistic and making the game more subtle for basic training.
2. History is told by the victors so by having a video game about a war we were in is pretty cool. I loved hearing stories from my grandfather about what he did in the war and being able to play though some of his experiences is awesome. I know its nowhere near the real thing of what he experienced but I can get an idea. The industry tends to only make games based on wars we won or some imaginary war they make up. Game developers tend to make games based on wars we won or some imaginary war they make up. I cant seem to recall their being any Vietnam games…..I wonder why?
3. Military games use fantasy as a way to desensitize the player. They make the game focus on you. By doing this it makes it seem like your every move is so much more important. This could help into making it easier for the real thing.
4. I’m fine with the military using games as a marketing tool. It’s not hurting anyone if you want enroll then do so. It’s up to the player to decide to what extent they be immersed into the game and if you cant get back to reality after playing then maybe you should stay away from the army games.
1) Battlezone was an early video game from Atari that was transformed into a military training tool. It was supposedly used as a trainer for the Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle. Back then, generally authors of games from this era came from a hacker counter-culture and he wasn’t thrilled about working with the military. All that aside, there were many hardware and software changes that took place to make the trainer. In terms of software, there needed to be changes in the graphics of enemy targets. They did this by changing colors of other tanks. In terms of programming, the tanks needed to move more realistically by being able to rotate the tanks turret independent of its movement. Things like physics and amount of rounds available were also change to make a more realistic rule set for the situation it was intended for. In terms of hardware the interface of the joystick was changed to an “H” shaped “yolk”. The author basically needed to reinvent a lot of the game.
2) Video games affect America’s perception of the war by creating an unreal fantasy about what war is like. In one reading someone emphasizes that the commercial gaming industry focuses on visualization and graphics over many other technologies. This one track thinking desensitizes gamers into thinking that these are realistic experiences of war. There are no repercussions or pain as a result of their choices. Some of the new technology that provides a new interface should be explored more.
3) The role of fantasy in war games allows for no physical or mental repercussions. It only allows the user to focus their experience on targeting and planning actions. This is good because you can focus on what’s important instead of things like pain, but is also an unrealistic interpretation of war at the same time.
4) In my opinion the military using games as a marketing tool is a great idea from their standpoint. I think they are targeting the current generation in the right way with the increasing popularity of video games. At the same time, they can’t at all expect any of their current efforts to be a realistic interpretation of war that is available to mass users, especially with the limited computer interface right now. I believe that they are just targeting people in an unrealistic way.
1.
With the success of the Atari game “Battle Zone”, the American military saw the possibility of customizing it into a trainng tool. The generalized battleground environment/ experience in “Battle Zone” was customized by the Atari game company, at the request of the American Army, into weaponry, environment and vehicles that were realistic representation of what was used in the Army.
2.
Video games represent war as game, which, ironically is its true metaphoric representation. While the real war becomes the Real Game of life and death, played out in the Real Battlefields, video games with simulated environments and realistic representations of the weaponry and landscape become a quasi-experience of the real stuff. It becomes an opportunity to experience the war with all the gadgets that attract young boys in the first place.
What gets removed in this simulated environment is the reality of being in the place, of killing someone, of invading into a culture and its people, the consequences of going to war, of killing people becomes an aspect of the game that is given and necessary for the game/ war to take place.
3.
Young generation males in the mainstream pop culture have fantasies of handling machines and weaponry (which itself can be argued as a marketing strategy of earlier war culture in America – like playing with GI Joes) – linked to machoism that their daddy generations portrayed in going to war. Commercial war games take advantage of this and put it into video games where players, instead of playing out a fantasy of their own with their own set of toys, can now enter and act out their fantasies in a predeterined virtual environment on-screen.
Fantasy that drives one to join the army and go through the rigor of the military training program then would be a reality in which the fantasy of becoming that hero played out in the video games, of a sense of achievement of being in a postion of being able to serve one’s country. Since violence is the means by which this honor can actually be achieved, the training thus becomes the preparation for commiting that violence for the better of one’s nation at large.
4.
Using video games as a marketing tool seems like an effective strategy to surpass possible parental disdain towards the army and target young video game players. With the upgrade in technology used in war and millitary training, it seems practical to seek generation who already are technology savvy. And since actual experence of war is increasingly distanced through computerization of attacking the enemy (where one doesn’t even need to confront the people one is killing, done entirely on the mapping on the monitor), it seems more than appropriate to target such groups.
And example of this could be a brother of an acquantance who since boyhood was obsessed with war vodeo-game shooters and ended up enlisting himself for the iraq war and now is apparently the no. 1 Apache Helicopter shooter.