Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
First Person Shooters (Games) Entertainment Games

Jenkins On War And Videogames 17

Posted by simoniker from the difficult-subjects-101 dept.
Thanks to the MIT Technology Review for their Henry Jenkins-authored opinion piece on the use of recent wars in videogames. Jenkins, an MIT professor and much-interviewed game-related academic, argues: "If the idea of turning war into games is so intrinsically offensive, why has there been so little public outrage over the use of playing cards as a way of representing the search for and capture of Iraqi leaders?" He concludes: "Given the divisiveness of current sentiments toward the war and the newness of games as a rhetorical medium, it is hardly surprising that these games offend some and disappoint others."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Jenkins On War And Videogames More

Jenkins On War And Videogames

Comments Filter:

  • Iraqi leader playing cards (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PeteyG ( 203921 ) on Saturday November 08, 2003 @12:19PM (#7424281) Homepage Journal
    why has there been so little public outrage over the use of playing cards as a way of representing the search for and capture of Iraqi leaders?

    Because the whole idea behind the deck of cards... was that US troops would carry them around, play games with them in their spare time, and memorize the faces of these guys so that if they happened to spot them... they could nab them.

    The media really latched onto the idea, but the original purpose was to promote awareness among the troops of what they should be on the lookout for. NOT some crazy Right-wing warmongering wargasmic ploy. THAT is why there has been no public outrage.

    Agree with most of the other stuff he says, though.
    • And I beleive that that they also did the cards because it saved them the trouble of trying to pronounce the names of the people they were trying to capture (which was difficult for some of them)- they could refer to them as the 2 of hearts instead of masahhala al-quday.
  • If you are offended by something, there is something wrong with you.

    There are only two types of things that someone can say. True things and False things. If someone says something false, then it's all BS and you can just shrug it off. Like if someone calls you a retard and you're not, it can't offend you. If it's true, then you should fess up to it with no regrets. Like say you're gay and someone calls you a fag, just be like "yeah I am, so what?".

    So let's say I make a video game where you're a terr
    • He's right. To put it bluntly, it's YOUR fault if you're offended by anything, because all meaning in communication is symbolic and interpreted by the receiver.

      If something offends you, take a deep breath and pull the stick out of your arse.

  • games and war (Score:5, Insightful)

    by HughsOnFirst ( 174255 ) on Saturday November 08, 2003 @12:59PM (#7424447)
    "Given the divisiveness of current sentiments toward the war and the newness of games as a rhetorical medium,

    Gee, isn't the relationship between games and war only a few thousand years old? Chess and playing cards originated in India and are both supposed to be modeled on war.

    • Re:games and war (Score:3, Insightful)

      by bj8rn ( 583532 )
      It's not only games like Chess. War has always been a kind of game in itself, with its own rules and code of honour. Samurais and the knights in medieval Europe are probably the best known examples of this, but war was a game already in very archaic cultures (read "Homo Ludens" by Johan Huizinga, for example) and, in a way, still is. The code of honour and ideals are still there -- hasn't Jessica Lynch been turned into a mythical hero just the same as Achilles or Cid or "Red Baron" von Richthofen?
  • 'For one thing, we use games to work through the intense anxieties surrounding modern warfare, to bring it at least momentarily under our symbolic control.'

    I guess this mean we shouldn't shun current events (Iraq, Afghanistan) since it causes more psychological damage rather than avoid.

  • Is this a flame-bait post? Is it automatic -1 to question whether a guy with some letters after his name sets off your BS meter?

    Seriously, this is a totally lame topic and you would think MIT wouldn't put up with this kind of BS, but I guess it even does.

    First, lets review how what is written being a totally media (or Jenkins) manufactured story. Recall a Christmas Carol. What did SCrooge's assistant give his kid? A toy soldier. What game did your parents play as children? Cowboys and Indians or maybe Ax

    • You really should RTFA (F=fine) before starting to lament like that. Jenkins isn't saying that you shouldn't play war games or anything flamebaitish. He just talks about different games about war that have been made recently, and why is there such a public outrage over them. If someone is flamebaiting here, it's simoniker. Unlike in the Slashdot blurb, Jenkins' conclusive paragraph sums the article up very well:

      Each game reflects different understandings of this war and its moral consequences. And each exp

      • I don't understand why any game, "realistic" (no game can be realistic unless you feel the bullets hit you) or abstract can, or needs to, give us an impression of what a battlefield is like.

        Make no bones about it, war is not pretty. I just think Jenkins needs to lay off moralizing a genre that is not meant to teach but to entertain. Games are supposed to be fun, escapist fantasy. The fact that the game deals with a relatively new war is irrelevant. The "artists" who made such things like "Velvet Strik
        • I want to say that I don't really agree much with Jenkins. However, I really disagree with the sentiment of your message.

          To say that something is "just a game" is the same as saying that a film is "just a movie." but movies make people cry, laugh and think. Why is it so impossible that games can do the same thing?

          I am not saying that games of war can or particularly should be full of meaning. However, doesn't it seem signifigant that war games are popular? Doesn't it seem to say something that we keep
          • However, doesn't it seem signifigant that war games are popular?

            They have always been popular. War games were popular even before there were computers or even TV-s. Of course it's significant, but what does it signify? At the moment, I have no idea.

            ...arguably the last war where there was no real ambiguity of who was the good guys and the bad guys.

            No real ambiguity? Tell me, were the Russians the good guys or the bad guys?

            Because games are very popular, because people spend hours a week playing them,

      • Your assumptions are invalid. I did read the article, all friggin 3 click through pages.

        The entire article was unoriginal literary masturbation. Meaningless. It really comes down to "some people think this, yet others think this." Duh, so what. We already know that.

  • "it is hardly surprising that these games offend some and disappoint others."

    There is no such thing as bad publicity. This is one of the main reasons these game companies try to make games out of the wars to begin with. It's essentially an Acclaim marketing tactic.

Slashdot Top Deals

"How to make a million dollars: First, get a million dollars." -- Steve Martin

Close