War Games

This is my final essay for Writing 122, may it rest in peace. If you detect an inflammatory tone to this one, it is far more intentional than the one on voting. Enjoy if you like.


Video games are an increasingly popular form of entertainment in modern culture. There are several different game-types, including (but not limited to) roleplaying games (RPGs), in which the gamer gets to develop his characters skills and complete quests independently, real-time strategy games (RTSs), in which the player constructs and commands entire armies, and shooters, in which the player usually plays through some sort of plot, but doesn’t get to do anything with his character’s skills or abilities. A popular sub-genre of game within the shooter genre is the war game, in which the player usually plays as a soldier in a historical war (generally Word War II) or a fictional war loosely based on modern technology and political climates. Such games make light of war and are morally wrong.
These games seem to forget that war has been and is a reality that many people take personally and approach with great care and delicacy. In the past, people have sacrificed others and even themselves to accomplish their missions in the name of duty, king and country, liberty, or what have you. These games make light of those sacrifices in the name of entertainment, as well as reducing the weighty and important military decisions that must be made in combat and war to objects to entertain gamers and couch potatoes.
War games also exploit the pain of others, both physical and emotional. In the fairly recently released Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, there is a mission in which the main character is acting as a double agent in a Russian terrorist group. In order to keep his cover, the player must attack an airport and fire upon crowds of travelers and bystanders in order to reach some objective. This is beyond offensive. It is a mockery of such tragedies and 9/11 and school shootings like Columbine and Virginia Tech and reduces them to objects for entertainment. Even more offensive is that the reason for the mission in the plot is to expose the main character as a double agent. There are many other ways to achieve this goal without having the player act as a terrorist. There is another mission in which the player must navigate slums in South America and hunt down insurgents. During the mission, the player pursues the insurgents through peoples’ homes, disregarding any collateral damage they may be causing. While these things do happen, is it necessary for them to be included in video games for the purpose of entertainment? The answer should be an adamant “no.” In fact, the presentation of such violence as entertainment, while not as extreme, brings to mind the “torture-porn” genre of films that includes the Saw and Hostel series, which displays violence for its own sake and presence the pain and torture of others as something that audience should take pleasure in.
Some may argue that war games exist to educate the uninformed about history and warfare. Were this true, then the games wouldn’t be as inaccurate as they are. For example, in Modern Warfare 2, a general is shown on the battlefield bearing only a pistol. This is inaccurate for two reasons, the first of which is that a general would not be present on the battlefield, as he is a high-ranking military officer and cannot afford the risk of being shot. Second, were a general to be in combat, it is unlikely that he would be armed with only a pistol. He would at least be given the weapons that any common foot soldier has. Included also in the game is some almost science fiction-esque technology, notably a “heartbeat detector” that functions as a sort of radar system to detect enemies in environments with limited visibility. The game also has some preposterous chase scenes, including one in which the player must race a snowmobile through Siberian mountains and jump a vast ravine to escape his pursuers. There is nothing inherently wrong with elements, but it is unrealistic and debunks any argument that claims such games are educational. If the player truly wished to learn about war, he could watch Steven Spielberg’s Saving Private Ryan, Kathryn Bigelow’s recent The Hurt Locker, the popular HBO miniseries Band of Brothers, or (heaven forbid) read any number of books on the subject.
While there are serious issues with war shooters, not all shooter games have said issues. There are other sub-genres, most notably science fiction. The immensely popular Halo series is about a war between humanity and several alien races that takes place five hundred years in the future. There are also many shooter games that take place in storylines and universes established by film, such as many Star Wars games, including Republic Commando, Battlefront, and Battlefront II. There have also been several James Bond video games created, though they are not as popular as the previously mentioned titles. These games are different because they are entirely fictional and entirely implausible. They satisfy the gamers’ desire for an intense, action-filled shooter, while not offending or degrading the reality of people’s sacrifice and pain in war. It is likely fair to even consider them more fun, as they are under no pretense of realism. If the player would like to be see war portrayed in a realistic, non-offensive manner, he could watch any number of films that show both the violence and reality of combat and wartime, as well as showing the profound effects that war has on its participants.
While video games are an extremely popular and prevalent form of video game, there are boundaries that should be drawn. War games, war shooters more specifically, are morally reprehensible creations that are often mockeries of war and reduce its realities to objects of entertainment. Such treatment of war is wrong, and should be avoided.