War Games

When the topic of video games first came up in this class, I wasn't sure how we were going to tie them into theories of rhetoric. Given my frame of reference is Super Mario Brothers and Mike Tyson's Punch Out, you can probably understand why. After reading the Hess and Stahl pieces, I have a much better appreciation for the rhetorical arguments that video games can make.

I have a lot of random thoughts, so in no particular order...

What I found particularly interesting in the Hess piece was the revisionist history that occurs in games like Medal of Honor: Rising Sun. History, they say, is written by the winners. And this game is a great example of that. While it has the outward sheen of authenticity, the game itself presents a singular vision of World War II which glorifies the victors and dehumanizes the enemy, leaving out any details which detract from its specific narrative. (Since many video games and consoles are made by Japanese companies, I wonder how people would feel about a Japanese version of the game that allowed the soldiers to participate in the bombing of Pearl Harbor? .....Guessing that wouldn't go over well). Like most of the war games in this genre, Medal of Honor also reinforces the idea that taking the fight to the enemy is the only patriotic thing to do. Even if people are not desensitized to violence by playing the game, it doesn't do much for promoting international diplomacy or peacekeeping efforts. I particularly liked the analogy of the video game to a digital museum display, the stories from "real-life" veterans to docents.  Just as we judge museum displays by the authenticity of the artifacts, we judge war games by the realism of the the uniforms, the weapons and the battle scenes. Medal of Honor gets its sense of historical accuracy from its era-specific artifacts; not by providing an authentic experience of war. Having never fought in combat, I can't say I know what it's like. But I'm pretty sure that no video game, no matter how realistic its graphics or advanced its game play, could ever recreate the experience of being at Pearl Harbor or the Battle of Guadalcanal. I wonder how many young people today will grow up with this game as their only frame of reference for World War II, in the same way that I conceptualized pioneer life by playing Oregon Trail....

The Stahl piece was especially fascinating because I had no idea just how deeply the commercial gaming industry and military industrial complex were in cahoots. I knew the U.S.Army had developed a video game for recruiting and branding purposes, but I never knew so many commercial video games start out as military simulations, and vice versa. When the video game companies aren't developing soldier simulations, they are trying to capitalize on real life conflicts. I thought it was interesting, albeit not surprising, that Sony tried to trademark "Shock and Awe" at the start of the Iraq War. (Didn't Disney just try to do the same thing with "Seal Team 6" shortly after they took down Osama Bin Laden?) The Kuma/War game goes so far as to even re-enact dramatic military missions down to the very last detail, only weeks after they played out in real life. To me, it would be more interesting to see games based on past wars and conflicts. I can only imagine the titles: Call of Duty: Battle of Hastings!  or Civil War: Shiloh Showdown!  How do you think people would react?

In any case, both articles make a strong case that the lines between video game and war, citizen and soldier, are blurring. Wars look more like video games, and video games look like wars.

Guess I'll stick with Super Mario Brothers.