The Political Games Surrounding Video Games 95
Rayonic writes "We all know the issue surrounding those who want to ban violent games, but a TechCentralStation editorial asks - can playing war games influence your political sensibilities? The media, for instance, are usually very ignorant of what goes on during military maneuvers. But a few days of playing Ghost Recon or America's Army might make you more knowledgeable than the average reporter (or even lawmaker), as the writer argues that 'the spread of military knowledge via wargaming might lead to political changes in the way war is perceived by Americans'."
I sure learn from video games. (Score:5, Interesting)
Joking aside, games can be a source of factual information. Just like any other form of media. And any new information is going to influence your outlook on everything. Assuming you're actually capable of seperating the fact from the fiction, this is a good thing.
--LordPixie
OffTopic: Cobra isn't much for combat situations. (Score:3, Interesting)
As my USAF father kept telling me, "Airspeed is life".
--LordPixie
Re:Wargames effect on the American population (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm not sure if I could say it changed any of my political beliefs, though. I'm a Libertarian, I support the war in Iraq, and my wife just got out of the Army after nine years. I can say, though, that this game does not glamorize warfare. It's dirty, gritty, ugly, confusing, and unfair. If anything, it gives you a better idea of what soldiers really have to face out there. Of course, nothing can ever truly convey that except for being there, but I short of a holodeck I can't imagine a game doing a better job of it than this.
Still, if you're at all interested in military video games, you absolutely must try Full Spectrum Warrior. If you don't have an XBox, it's supposed to be coming out for the PC soon.
Re:Article is a troll against Democrats (Score:3, Interesting)
1)The religious right, aka the holly rollers. They want to tell everyone how to live their lives and believe they have the direct line to god. They're a minority, but they're loud and the party panders to them, since they'd go dem in a second if the democrats would further their religion. Ashcroft is a member of this group.
2)The rich, aka the selfish pricks. These are people with large amounts of money/power who care only about amassing more money/power. This is the smallest group in real numbers, but they run the party. This is a bad thing, since what thye want doesn't really mesh with what 90% of republicans want. Bush is a member of this group
3)Libertarians. Probably about the same size as #1, but not pandered to because theres no way they'd go to the left. Pretty much non-factors due to the 2 party system.
4)The status quoers. They think America is a pretty good place, and don't want major change, either from fear it would fuck things up, from lack of vision, or due to just not caring about politics. This is the largest group, but has 0 political power since they don't want anything. Elections for republicans basicly require them to ocnvince these people to go to the polls.
Most republicans want someone from group 4- someone who just stays the course and does pretty much nothing for 4 years. And admittedly, there's worse ways to spend a presidency. Unfortunately, group 2 firmly controls the republican party, because 4 is too non-political. And since 2 has the money, it'll remain in control unless the party breaks up. Which can't happen in America due to the 2 party system. Welcome to America, get used to the assholes the republicans put out as candidates, it isn't going to change.
Re:I think you missed my point... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd agree that exposure to material doesn't invoke a subconscious adjustment (short of brainwashing, subliminal messaging, etc) - but that isn't quite what you said.
The violence argument has always set out to suggest that the behavioral adjustment is subconscious and automatic. The political leaning argument (presented here for the first time that I've read) specifically denotes the necessary step of consciously applying knowledge gained from exposure to material to adjust views and behavior.
The passive/active divide makes them quite distinct imo.
I'll bite on the conspiracy theory bait.... (Score:1, Interesting)
""Were we right? You can judge for yourself. But I note that all the anti-videogame legislators mentioned in the Wired News story are Democrats. . . ""
seems to be implying that the anti-videogame democrats dislike them, not from some misguided belief that if I play combat sims I'll decide to gather a huge stack of weapons and go on a rampage, but because if I play wargames, I might be able to see through the Great Liberal Media Conspiracy to Turn People Against War.
That seems to be the dumbest idea I've ever heard. It's contributing to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity. These guys don't like video games because they think they have to Protect the Children! And they're backed by people who think they know better how to raise other people kids than their parents.
Likewise, I don't need some great liberal conspiracy to tell me war sucks and that innocent people die due to mistakes. Nor do I need some video game to teach me that under fire, a soldier is not guaranteed to make the best decision, or that winning or losing one battle doesn't determine a war (usually).
As for his suggestion that combat sims make us better informed, politically.
Re:I think you missed my point... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Article is a troll against Democrats (Score:1, Interesting)