Iraq War Veterans Protest America's Army Title 216
Via GamePolitics, a story reported by the St. Lois Post-Dispatch of frustrated war veterans protesting America's Army . Roughly 100 veterans of the Iraq war marched near an elaborate demonstration of the military-funded game, outside of an expo center in Missouri. Their shouts of 'war is not a game' must have contrasted sharply with the elaborate simulator the Army had set up to publicize their (already very popular) FPS title.
Good news, everyone! (Score:5, Insightful)
One onlooker told the protesters they should support their country. Another passer-by snapped back at him: "That's exactly what she's doing."
That might be the most embiggening thing about the entire episode... that people (who are not just typing it on their blog) are starting to realize that.
Games and Reality (Score:5, Insightful)
If someone would like to argue that the game preps youth for war and predisposes them to join the army, then they would seem to be arguing that gta prepares and predisposes players to crime and violence, etc.
They're Within Their Rights (Score:5, Insightful)
AA vs. Real Violence (Score:5, Insightful)
Any time America's Army comes up, I always think about how insane it is that on the one hand many people and politicians in the U.S. are hysterical about video games supposedly causing violent behavior, while at the same time I hear no real objections from these people to their tax dollars being used to develop a game whose explicit point, AFAIK, is to persuade kids to take part in actual violence (by becoming soldiers).
I am not a pacifist, and I don't object to people serving in the military. My father served in the military and so did his father. I think that, whatever the realities, there are some good, noble reasons to become a soldier. I just don't think that "killing people is fun" is one of them.
I also don't really think (in the absence of convincing evidence) that video games generally lead to violent behavior. I do think, though, that a game put out by the Army that touts its realism can shape the ideas of what combat is like in impressionable minds, so I definitely have an ethical problem with them using it as part of a recruiting effort with people who are just coming into adulthood.
Re:Games and Reality (Score:5, Insightful)
By the same token, sometimes we create such a connection on purpose. The difference between a military-style video game and a military training simulator isn't so much accuracy and detail. The difference is that when practicing on a training simulator you are deliberately, explicitly, and with the support of your superiors trying to equate the simulated action with its real-life counterpart. I think it's worth noting that even when conflating games with real life in order to train someone to kill is the explicit goal, still a large portion of soldiers find that when push comes to shove and they're faced with the actual chance to shoot someone that they are unable to pull the trigger. Yet that portion is much smaller than before we started training soldiers to be comfortable shooting a person, starting back when we replaced normal firing range targets with person-shaped ones.
Now what about America's Army? While it isn't an explicit combat trainer, it is a game called "America's Army" put out by the U.S. Army itself. It's not just any video game, it's official advertising for the Army, their P.R. for what being in the Army is like and what kind of exciting things you'll be able to do. Look at how in the game no matter which team you are on, your side is always the U.S. Army and the other side is the evil terrorists.
What I'm saying is that AA has an implicit reality claim intended to create a connection between the game and reality. It is implicitly a brochure for what you can experience in the Army, going to foreign lands and shooting the "bad guys" for the sake of your country. The Army wants you to form a connection between the game and the real-life choice of joining the Army.
It certainly isn't the same as explicit military training simulators, and I doubt any peacenik nerd playing AA for fun is going to rush out to join the military, or much less so run out and buy a gun to start shooting people. I'm just saying that there is a definite connection between the game and reality that doesn't exist in other games and thus causes more of an effect on people. BF1942 is in no way ever presented as showing how you could be a WWII soldier. GTA has no connection to real-life crime outside of the minds of the deranged. Yet if the next sandbox/crime game were to be produced by the mafia for purposes of recruitment, then I do think you would see a much stronger connection between the game and real-life crime.
Long story short: unlike other games, America's Army is designed to make you think about the real-life Army while playing the game, because otherwise there wouldn't be any reason for it to exist.
Re:Not always what they say... (Score:2, Insightful)
Absolutely, the military doesn't LIE and it spells out exactly what you may potentially be asked to do... but they're very good at using semantics to mislead people. In this case it is a Kickass(tm) action game meant to entice children to join the military.
Well the army seems to think that it is a game... (Score:4, Insightful)
The Fuck? (Score:3, Insightful)
I just had a weird idea (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not always what they say... (Score:4, Insightful)
Forever. Until you die or go crazy. None of this "limited tours of duty" crap that we did with WW2, no sir. It's Warhammer 40K in the corps: life is war, war is life, venerate the immortal emperor.
That's what joining the army now means. Army Strong means huddling in a corner when someone drops a book behind you.
B-b-b-but we're 'at war'! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:America's Army (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It is unethical because it is a LIE. (Score:3, Insightful)
I can't imagine that any sensible person would play a game like you describe and then decide that they are impervious to rockets and gun fire. Shoot- A-team tried to teach me that and I made it through o.k. But anyway - everybody is keying on this 'simulation' thing and how this is different from every other video game because the army pays for the development and I say nope. It's just another first person shooter - and it is wrong to say that somehow this game is bad but all the others are o.k.
Mixed feelings (Score:1, Insightful)
That said, I have no desire to see the game discontinued because it might-possibly-theoretically-kinda-sorta convince a kid that joining the Army is something worth doing. The Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps all offer something to those willing to take up the challenge-- whether it be educational benefits, travel opportunities (eight countries and counting), or just a steady job. For a lot of people, these are great opportunities. If a video game provides people with a more detailed view of military life, and helps somebody decide that they want that life, then I'm not sure it's such a bad thing.
(I would also like to note that military recruiters in EVERY branch are known for not showing "the whole truth" to recruits. I've seen tons of recruitment videos, pamphlets, and presentations that show the same above-listed benefits and opportunities-- while showing none of the downsides. It's the nature of the recruitment machine. If we want to change it, perhaps we should start with the top, and institute reforms throughout the recruiting corps-- not just the video game.)
The game is propaganda, and we should recognize that and make sure that our kids who play the game realize it, too. Once we've done that, we have to allow the next generation to make their own decisions about whether or not to enlist. For those who do-- I thank them for their service and wish them the best. For those who don't-- I thank them for their consideration and wish them the best, as well.
Re:The Fuck? (Score:3, Insightful)
I suppose it depends on what aspect of America you mean. The people who emigrated to the colonies in 1650-1750 were dissenters of the Church of England, the arbitrary rule of the European monarchies, and the rigid social hierarchy or their mother countries.
They regularly protested excessive taxation, trade restrictions, and various other laws [wikipedia.org]. The Revolution was a long time coming.
The people have not given up their protests, either. We have protested the keeping of slaves, the consumption of alcohol, the prohibition of alcohol, denying women a voice in government, every war ever fought, and the periodic failure of various government institutions to serve their purpose.
If there is one idea that our country holds above all else it is that "Everyone is entitled to his opinion." Everything after that is an attempt to reconcile the valid opinions of occasional wack-o's against the popular opinions of the rest of the sheep. Everything after that is an attempt to prevent dissent and protest from building up to a second Revolution.
Re:The Fuck? (Score:4, Insightful)
Furthermore, I think you confuse "opposing America" with "opposing the current use of America's armed forces". There's a whole hell of a lot more to this country than the military.
Re:The Fuck? (Score:5, Insightful)
And since what they're actually opposing are the policies of the President, you have proven that Bush supporters have been convinced that opposing George Bush is the same as opposing America, and that supporting George Bush is supporting America.
Just like every time in the last six years somebody has said "support our troops!" what they actually meant is "stop questioning George Bush!"
Here's a hint: George W. Bush is not America. If I'm against how Bush's policies because they are ruining America, it's because I'm for America. If I'm against how Bush is wasting our soldiers' lives, it's because I'm deeply concerned about our troops.
Oh, and I think the fact that AA is a recruiting tool disguised as a game is part of their complaint.
Re:Not always what they say... (Score:3, Insightful)
Support the troops, unless they oppose the war... (Score:2, Insightful)
Good lord! At least somebody will "cut them some slack" for exercising their First Amendment rights!
You think these soldiers have been misled by the liberal media just because they oppose the war? They saw the war. You didn't. My friend Jim, 25, was a medic in Falluja. He is against the war. He came back and his hair was gray, and he is 25. I think that gives him more than the right to have any opinion he wants.
Anecdotes aside, even if I disagree with someone who is pro-war, I can at least argue with them because I think they are wrong, giving them some credit for coming to their own views through experience or rationale...no matter how stupid I think the conclusions are. So "pray" they change their minds about it, wow. Sounds like you are ashamed of them for having minds in the first place.
Think about your argument: the big thing I hear from pro-war people with the "support our troops" line was that after Vietnam, troops came home and were spit on by anti-war people; now troops come back from Iraq and are given crap by pro-war people? And simultaneously told they need to "support the troops" by people who didn't even serve? Unbelievable.
Re:The Fuck? (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, as a some-time student of American history, it seems to me that actively questioning the government's policies and actions is even more American than apple pie. As an American citizen who trusts the government about as far as I can throw it, I've seen both sides of the aisle claim that if you don't blindly follow their Party line then you are un-American. And as a former soldier from back in the day when we sent troops to the jungle rather than the sandbox, I say that you, sir, still need to get over it. At least you didn't get spit on in airports when you came home wearing your uniform, and you never got portrayed as 'the bad guy' in just about every Hollyweird movie & tv program of the era.
Don't kid yourself, 'America's Army' is a propagandising tool disguised as a video game.
And is not revolution just the extreme case of dissent?