Separator
The unbalanced depictions of war games
2_fobs_n_a_goon__2_
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
EDITOR'S NOTEfrom James DeRosa

Siri argues that video-game representations of foreign cultures are unbalanced -- and perhaps dangerously essentialist. I have to say that I'd be hard pressed to argue that the plots of the Call of Duty franchise aren't mostly chauvinistic tripe.

I am a complete cynic who will play devil's advocate at the drop of a hat. If it's an unpopular idea with some amount of merit, then you better believe it'll come out of my mouth. Couple this with the fact that I think much of the human race is useless, and you're likely to hear me say some very uncomfortable things from time to time.

I am also not a big patriot. Don't get me wrong: I love America, and I never would want to live anywhere else. My family's wealth and happiness are a result of the circumstance of living here. But I wasn't born here, so I have a somewhat more objective view on topics of global concern: A BMW is better than a Ford. A Nazi engineer helped the U.S. win the space race (though the Soviets had Nazi help, too). Julian Assange is an absolute saint because he's an advocate for government transparency.

I can love America, but I'm not going to withhold my opinions because of that. This is why I have a serious problem with the direction first-person war games are headed.

The folks at Kaos Studios just released Homefront, the latest product in a long line of titles which feature a historical enemy of America as the primary antagonist -- North Korea, Russia, anything remotely Middle Eastern, Japan or, God forbid...Germany.

 

In the beginning, the titles were at least based on real battles. World War II actually happened, and it was the last war in which "good" and "evil" sides were clearly defined. American soldiers actually stormed the beach at Normandy and fought the Germans. The Russians really did battle against overwhelming odds in a brutal winter against forces with superior equipment. I can live with that.

But a fictional invasion of America by Russia? A biological super-weapon that the Soviets are going to use to end the Cold War? North Korea taking over western America? These are the basic plot conceits of Modern Warfare 2, Black Ops, and Homefront. I know everyone "oohs" and "aahs" at the gameplay videos, but does no one see the philosophical and -- quite frankly -- obvious problems with this kind of stuff?

We have to admit to ourselves that games have an effect on our psyche -- or at the very least, how we look at popular media. After his playthrough of Black Ops' campaign, a 19-year-old friend of mine walked around spouting more anti-Russian bullshit than I knew what to do with. Is he a hate-filled warmonger? No.

But it amped him up and fed him a distorted version of reality that got him spouting nonsense for a while afterward. And he's a smart kid. Most people aren't.

Teenagers have committed crimes -- including the murder -- claiming inspiration from titles like Grand Theft Auto. If there's any truth to this, imagine the horrors that an endless parade of jingoistic war games might inspire.

I don't mind movies like Red Dawn or The Rules of Engagement. With film, you can watch for two hours, enjoy, and move on. Also, for every Red Dawn, we get a Letters from Iwo Jima or an All Quiet on the Western Front. These films add a human element to the depiction of the "bad guys." Japan was a member of the Axis powers, but the soldiers were a diverse group of people following orders. The Germans were the bad guys in World War I, but most of the soldiers were just as sick of the conflict as everyone else.

Where is that balance in video games? Why are we reduced to shooting maniacal caricatures of real people? What is the interactive equivalent to Letters from Iwo Jima?

We have hundreds of hours of gameplay that feed us the idea that all people from these countries are heartless, soulless killers. And for some disturbing reason, these experiences are the most popular thing around. I'm not saying these games brainwash people into committing hate crimes, but all media leaves an imprint on the cultural zeitgeist.

Imagine if Japan or Germany made a game that harped on the worst moments in American history.

Perhaps Japan makes a title in which you have to "build a country." The game opens with the player landing on a Virginian shore. The goal of the first chapter is to subjugate the natives with a combination of religious hypocrisy, alcohol, guns, and smallpox. The second chapter flashes forward a few hundred years. The goal in part two is to settle the Midwest. To do this, you repeatedly kick the natives off different pieces of land, driving them across the country in an event that will come to be known as The Trail of Tears. In act three, you stockpile nuclear weapons until you can finally proclaim yourself "the greatest country on earth" with no sense of irony because everyone else is too terrified to say otherwise. Congratulations, you win.

Anyone feeling uncomfortable? Anyone thinking, "well that's a hateful, selective, and biased view of the U.S."?

That's my point. If another country produced such a game, Americans would be outraged. Glenn Beck would scream so hard that he'd choke on his own mic.

The industry needs to be more responsible in how it depicts other cultures -- at least some of the time. As it stands, this never happens. And it's for that reason, that I will not be buying Homefront.

 
3
BITMOB'S SPONSOR
Adsense-placeholder
Comments (9)
Wile-e-coyote-5000806
March 14, 2011


An interesting take.  I agree with you that war is not so black-and-white, and would love to see more sympathetic enemies in games.  That is one place that I have been disappointed with the Killzone games.  When I read the backstory on the official website, I saw a lot of potential to explore the Helghast as a sympathetic faction fighting to win back what was taken from them.  Instead, they have become space Nazis.  I really want to see a war game that makes people think about the morality of war.  Rarely is it as cut and dried as "good versus evil".



I think the barriers to it are two-fold.  First, most people don't want video games to challenge them philosophically.  People sometimes just want to shoot things.



Secondly, people don't want to think that they might be in the wrong when it comes to war.  People tend to dehumanize their enemies because it gets really difficult to be killing people.  It is much easier to declare your enemies evil because then you are not evil for killing them, and you don't have to face your own flaws that might be motivating your enemies.


Photo3-web
March 14, 2011


Siri, you lump together movies like Red Dawn, Letters from Iwo Jima, and Black Hawk Down, three very different films. Red Dawn was pure cheese, and was meant as such. I enjoyed Letters from Iwo Jima because it didn't sympathize with the Japanese; it merely portrayed their point of view. And while there were sympathetic characters, the film didn't shy away from showing the brutal militiaristic culture that had taken hold in Imperial Japan. Black Hawk Down was, quite simply, the most accurate and realistic portrayal of war ever put on film. I'm sorry that the characterization of American soldiers as "good guys" apparently offends you. In fact, Jerry Bruckheimer was publicly stated that, as producer, his intention with BHD was to show the heroism of said American soldiers. He shows the suffering of the Somalian people, the horrors of war, and even gives prominent Somalian characters a soapbox to air their grievances (observe the arms dealer's conversation with General Garrison).



Even in the heavily-fictionalized world of Modern Warfare, the Russian "villains" aren't two-dimensional characters. Medal of Honor drew inspiration from Operation Anaconda in the Afghani theater but the "enemies" were hardly stereotypes, if a bit underdeveloped. (for more on this battle, see the excellent book, "Robert's Ridge.")



I think you expect too much from FPS's. If they’re simply “bad guys running at you screaming with a bayonet", that's because the FPS is about combat, not the underlying tensions or political motivations of each faction. I'm fairly certain that your average FPS fan (this includes me) wouldn't abide the same degree of exposition in a shooter as say an RPG or adventure game. We expect lengthy cutscenes in the latter two. With FPS's, we like action.


Default_picture
March 14, 2011


Just a little correction: Ford has already surpassed BMW in car making with the Ford GT. They're two different companies really. BMW is concerned about getting the passenger from A to B, Ford is concerned about getting the passenger from A to B in a ball of flames.


2_fobs_n_a_goon__2_
March 15, 2011


@Jason - thank you for enlightening me. I in fact, did not know about Bruckhemier's comments. I have no problem with the heroism of American soldiers. I respect anyone who is willing to die for what they believe in. I will definetly go back and watch it and catch that part you were talking about :)


Photo3-web
March 15, 2011


@Siri Really, BHD's raison d'être is to show the heroism of American soldiers (contemporary news reports had downplayed this aspect, focusing on the two Delta snipers being dragged through the street). No more, no less. It neither supports American policy with regards to Somalia nor specifically refutes it. That conversation I mentioned gives both sides.


Me
March 16, 2011


I'm a good little Progressive so I see what you're saying...but we're talking about military first person shooters specifically. A "realistic" mil-FPS would be boring as sin. Gunning down people when they've been humanized might actually be more brutal and sadistic than what we have right now.



We're also dealing with xenphobia, something that is just deeply ingrained into American culture. I am ALL about media literacy, so I'm down with this piece of writing, but I've also learned not to be bothered by this sort of thing anymore. I do have the privilege of being a third-generation American when I say this, however.



I'm more concerned about the lack of innovative design than I am xenophobia and ethnocentrism in mil-FPS games, but I wonder if my design issues stem from the same quandry as the cultural issues you observe. They're just mil-FPS games. It's possible they've gone as far as they can go without becoming more "realistic."


Photo3-web
March 16, 2011


In a "realistic" military FPS, you'd die all the time, kill about 1/10 the number of enemies, and most of your time would be occupied by filling out reports and proctoring AARs (After Action Reports). Say goodbye to regenerating health, running while shooting (by a show of hands, who thinks this improves your accuracy?), and various other "dramatic liberties" (as Hollywood would say). Your average FPS hero kills about 1,000 enemies without any trace of PTSD or mental disorders.

I think all of these dramatic liberties are necessary--few gamers would want to play a "real" FPS. But as Dennis says, I think we've reached the upper limits of FPS realism.


Default_picture
March 17, 2011


Spoilers don't matter, right? I mean, if we're going to talk about the plots of games, we can't be restrained by spoilers.



Developers are, for the most part, aware of the possibly offensive nature of these kinds of plotlines and do try to balance their depictions. For example, Homefront is about N. Korea taking over parts of the US, as you know. It does feature Koreans doing extremely cruel stuff to American civilians, but it also features a Korean supporting character (Hopper) who is part of the Resistance. He plays a crucial role in many parts of the plot, such as it is.



At one point, the player character finds himself outside of the Korean occupied zone, only to have to fight Americans, the type who'd be comfortable wearing Swastikas or KKK hoods, and sees these people doing really cruel stuff to Koreans they've captured.



So it's not all just one sided, though the marketing will probably have people thinking so. I can't even say if these counterpoints devs put in games are successful or not, but they do try.


2_fobs_n_a_goon__2_
March 17, 2011


@Albert - Thanks for that, it actually is a vital point of information.



Even Modern Warfare had that ONE Russian source that helped them. Eventually one of the scientists helps you in Black Ops. 



But it almost seems to say that "Hey, there's at least ONE good guy right?". I think their intentions are correct in showing a Korean support character that assists the player, but I don't think it's effective. Also, my contention is more that the enemy is dehumanized more than Americans are overly emphasized you know?



Thank you though, it's good to know that they did try!


You must log in to post a comment. Please register or Connect with Facebook if you do not have an account yet.