It's just a game, some say. I think it promotes war, desensitizes killing

America's Army Is Not Too Quiet on the Advergame Front

March 23, 2006
http://www.twitchguru.com/2006/03/23/americas_army_is_not_too_quiet_on_the_advergame_front/

Five years ago, the idea of an official U.S. Army computer game might have seemed impossible. But today, America's Army is the gold standard by which all advergames are often measured. What started out as a small, unlikely project within the federal government is now a bona fide franchise with millions of players. Designed to educate and promote the U.S. Army to gamer-age people, the game was developed via the Army Game Project within the Army's Office of Economic and Manpower Analysis over a two-year period for about $4 million. After being released in 2002 as a free PC game, America's Army quickly became the Army's most effective marketing tool as well as a hit game.

Interview with Chris Chambers, deputy director of the Army Game Project:

RW: Beyond the number of players that the game has pulled in, is America's Army having an impact on their views of the U.S. Army?

CHAMBERS: It's tough to accurately measure. We've handcuffed ourselves to a certain degree because registered players are anonymous; we don't want players to think that by signing up for the game that they'll have a recruiter knocking on their door that afternoon. We think there is an attitudinal change taking place, but we're just the tip of the recruiting spear. The point of America's Army is to communicate with young people.


RW: What's next in terms of development for America's Army?

CHAMBERS: We've got a lot going on. We're transitioning to Unreal Engine 3, which is amazing. That's really going to be great for the next version of the game. Plus, we're also making the game more modular so that players can download different segments of the game. One of the problems we've discovered is that the basic training segment, for example, is probably the worst part of the whole game but it's the first level of the game. We've got versions of the game for the consoles now, and we're also prepping a launch of a wireless version of the game for the end of the summer. But probably the biggest thing going on now is that America's Army is being used pretty extensively as a training tool within the military. For example, the game display is being used for vehicle training simulations. We started the training program about 18 months ago, and it's really ramping up now.



Don't bother using this post to rail against legislating thes games out of existence. It's not going to happen and I personally wouldn't waste time try to make it happen. But, I will speak my mind about our tax dollars used to mindlessly promote war as if it were inevitable and unavoidable. The thing I hate most about the games are the scenarios that the virtual soldiers operate under. To conjure and play with the horrific violence of war is a sad reflection of the state we're in now with these government manufactured wars and the nation's unwillingness or inability to reverse course.

they believe war will be like the games....in the games virtual violence maybe their buddy gets killed...in real life they are wearing the gore of their buddy...I think that these kids will come back more messed up than those that didn't use these games...

You are right you can't say take these games off the shelf because you would have to take all similar type games off of the shelf.

Tax dollar should not be used for this...

(which is a game similar to the army game) I can say one thing for certain: I never want to go anywhere near the Army. Getting shot in the head from 300 yards away by someone you never even saw? Hell, it's disturbing enough when it happens on the computer screen!

It's so easy to tell the avid game players from the "nannystaters" in any of these game discussions.

The avid game players actually know what they are talking about. :evilgrin:

BTW, it never gets less disturbing does it (being taken out by someone you never saw)? Which makes that whole "desensitization" thing just another urban legend.

"We think there is an attitudinal change taking place, but we're just the tip of the recruiting spear. The point of America's Army is to communicate with young people."


"an attitudinal change". I'll say . . .

with what I posted?

I don't want to get off of the point (at the risk of being labeled a "nannystater") that these games promote war at our expense.

edit: the Army spokesman thinks some "desensitization" has occurred - "an attitudinal change"

yours was in response to mine.

As to the meat of your latest post. You said:

"the Army spokesman thinks some "desensitization" has occurred - 'an attitudinal change'"

That's not actually what he said...and it's certainly not in context.

A careful reading of the entire article, and the portion you've quoted out of context reveal some interesting facts.

The Army spokesman was asked:

"Beyond the number of players that the game has pulled in, is America's Army having an impact on their views of the U.S. Army?"

The Army spokesman responds:

"CHAMBERS: It's tough to accurately measure. We've handcuffed ourselves to a certain degree because registered players are anonymous; we don't want players to think that by signing up for the game that they'll have a recruiter knocking on their door that afternoon. We think there is an attitudinal change taking place, but we're just the tip of the recruiting spear. The point of America's Army is to communicate with young people."

Note the first 2 lines of his response indicate that there is no evidence that the game is bringing in recruits. In fact, the news is fairly constant that all branches of the military are failing to hit their recruiting goals, so Chambers saying anything to the contrary would have been a lie anyway. But let's move on to the part you quoted out of context...the "attitudinal change"...

Chambers says "we THINK there is an attitudinal change taking place" (emphasis mine). He as zero evidence to support such thinking, or he would have added it. Believe me, he would have added it. Dems are not the only people questioning the spending of tax dollars on this game. Chambers goes on to cover the fact that there is no evidence of what they "think" by trying to dampen expectations: "...but we're just the tip of the recruiting spear" and "The point of America's Army is to communicate with young people."

Farther down in the article, Chambers adds more info which contradicts your out-of-context quoting, including these gems:


1. "The day of the invasion, our numbers for registered users didn't change much. The numbers change when we release new versions of the game, but we don't see much impact from real world events."

and...

2. "...most of the people to come to play America's Army have an innate interest in the military and are usually a patriotic bunch."

3. "We anchor a very responsible end of the game making industry. We don't treat violence lightly. We care about what parents think of violent video games. On the other hand, there are some people that have criticized us because they feel the game isn't violent enough and that we need to show more blood and amputees to be realistic. I understand their argument, but I just don't think that we need to include that level of violence for what we're trying to accomplish with the game."

and in response to a question concerning what's "coming next in terms of development"...

4. "One of the problems we've discovered is that the basic training segment, for example, is probably the worst part of the whole game but it's the first level of the game."

The last two quotes actually refute your claim that the Army spokesman thinks there has been a "desenstization." You added that in with the "attitudinal change" although the linkage is purely yours and not supported by the article. What the spokesman points out is that they've actually been criticized for not including more violence, and that the basic training segment, the beginning of the game, is the worst part. Neither of those bode well for recruiting or desensitizing young male minds.

It is perfectly reasonable to complain to high heaven that our tax dollars are being spent by the Army on a video game which doesn't bring them more recruits. But your assertion about desensitization is not supported by the article you linked, it's actually refuted by it.

if they didn't think it was effective.

I didn't buy all of the spokesman's sell or his brush-off of the violence, but it's clear they aim to acclimate players to war.

I don't think I actually need scientific evidence of the desensitizing effect that comes with promoting war as a game. I would think that's an obvious result. But, we disagree. Fine.

There's also a 'real world' link with the increased reliance on armed drones and plans to use armed 'robots' for the prosecution of future wars. I'm concerned with our nation's attitude toward violence inflicted by remote control, about the prosecution of war without the involvement of soldiers and the casualties that might otherwise restrain us from war.

America is great that way.

However, while you are entitled to your opinions, the article you provided as suppport doesn't actually support unless quoted out of context. And as for aiming to acclimate players to war, the same could be said for all the other war type video games not made by the Army. It's a popular genre.

Two final points:

1. You say: "I don't think I actually need scientific evidence of the desensitizing effect that comes with promoting war as a game. I would think that's an obvious result."

Wowie. I prefer to base my opinions on fact and like to rely on good, quality, scientific inquiry to reveal those facts, but hey, you're free to do as you please.

2. You end with:

"There's also a 'real world' link with the increased reliance on armed drones and plans to use armed 'robots' for the prosecution of future wars. I'm concerned with our nation's attitude toward violence inflicted by remote control, about the prosecution of war without the involvement of soldiers and the casualties that might otherwise restrain us from war."

Now, although I disagree about there being an "link" between the video game and the new drone/robot technology, the rest of what you say here is intriguing. I'd love to see you post this paragraph as a new discussion thread. I think it merits a long, close examination. There have been scientific experiments in the past with subjects inflicting pain through the push of a button with amazing results. Please PM me if you do start a thread on this, because I'd love to take part. I think you're on to something very interesting with it.

and the announcer says something like, "We've been looking for you"

Found this quote that puts it well:

"Because of their focus on new ways of waging war virtually, the military is also very interested in recruiting video game players to control all of their new virtual reality tools."

http://www.nps.edu/PAO/ArchiveDetail.aspx?id=644&role=pao&area=media


another article:

Iraq - The Video Game

Starting this spring, the Defense Department is sending a robot into combat. Its name is SWORDS - short for Special Weapons Observation Reconnaissance Detection System. According to the BBC, starting in April, the US is shipping over 18 of the units which cost $230,000 a piece (that is for the base platform as weapons mount and weapons are sold separately). SWORDS is controlled by a "remote operator" up to "several thousand feet away".

SWORDS is part of a flexible platform. Another version of the robot is being used for bomb defusing. It is made by Foster-Miller who is owned by QunietiQ who is owned by none other than the Carlyle Group.

There seems to be no concern or alarm about arming a robot and sending it into battle. After all, the remote controlled Predator drones haven't caused many public waves - even when they are used as missile platforms. While SWORDS (in its various renditions) seems likely to save troop casualties, one has to wonder about its discriminatory capacity. Can a remote operator a half mile or more away from the robot adequately discriminate friend from foe / civilian from combatant under battlefield conditions? My guess is this will be one of Rumsfeld's "spiral development" projects. That means live testing in the field rather than a testing and development cycle.

http://www.uncommonthought.com/mtblog/archives/012405-iraq_the_video_gam.php
http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=657
http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_Talon,,00.html

you should have linked in your first post. They come much, much closer to supporting your assertions.

However, the fact remains that whatever the motive behind the Army's video game investment and promotion, they're severely lacking any evidence that they're getting results they want.

That was, and continues to be my point in this thread--that there is no evidence that these games are desensitizing people or aiding in recruiting.

I hope they fail.

But, I see a definite move toward hi-tech, remote warfare that has to be countered, both on the supply side (recruits) and the material side (hardware). I don't think I should hold my fire until I see the fruits of their militarism. They've planted the seeds. I'm set to dig them up before they germinate and sprout.

of digging up seeds that aren't germinating.

But you're free to do so.

of the fertile ground

and crying wolf.

I'll live with that, in this case. Lives are in the balance.

Those are your words, not mine.

To raise a false alarm.

http://www.bartleby.com/61/96/C0779600.html

I could probably fund my own mini-army! The same is likely true of most gamers, on the COD servers even the best players still "die" a dozen times in a 15 minute round.

for how many times they "died" in FPS games, I'd live in a much bigger house and drive a much better car!! LOL!

I was mostly referring to my personal experience. However, I don't put much stock in these "video games desensitise us to violence" theories. I put a lot more stock in the "useless parents have useless children" theories. As for this game being a good recruiting tool for the Army, how are their recruiting figures doing these days?

because "violent video games desensitize" keeps getting passed around as common sense and absolute truth when there is no evidence to support it. (Note to other readers: don't waste bandwidth linking to studies "suggesting" a "correlation"...those only PROVE the point I just made.)

I agree with the useless parents useless children idea...I've seen it in action too many times. It is completely possible to raise children to know the difference between reality and fiction, and to have compassion and common sense. The only time that good parenting fails to produce these results is when there is a diagnosable illness in the child, in which case, good parents get those children the help they need.

And as for the game being a recruiting tool, yeah, the numbers speak for themselves.

like media does. Why would we rail against a political campaign ad and be so sanguine about the effect of the Army campaign? It goes on without reproach or a balance, insinuating this militarist administration's 'values' into impressionable minds, all at our expense. Meanwhile, folks wonder why there is so much tolerance for the violence and killing that's associated with Bush's wars. I would suggest that this effort by the military contributes to that, maybe not in some overwhelming way, but insidious nonetheless. And we pay for this.

Recruiting figures? I think they are desperate to counter the images of carnage from Iraq. Should we wait to see if their ploy works?


articles:

Army Guard Refilling Its Ranks

The Army Guard said Friday that it signed up more than 26,000 soldiers in the first five months of fiscal 2006, exceeding its target by 7 percent in its best performance in 13 years. At this pace, Guard leaders say they are confident they will reach their goal of boosting manpower from the current 336,000 to the congressionally authorized level of 350,000 by the end of the year.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/11/AR2006031101342.html


Recruiting Game Geeks for War

March 23, 2006: Big, or at least amusing, news in South Korea, where it was announced that the South Korean Air Force is taking draftees, who have extensive computer gaming experience (some are professional players), and putting them in a special unit. There, the gamers will help develop training simulations and other computer game related stuff. China is apparently doing the same thing, and has been adapting commercial computer games to military use for years. The U.S. Air Force began recruiting commercial wargame designers, and other with extensive wargame experience, back in the early 1990s. The U.S. Army was doing the same thing in the same thing in the late 1970s. This included bringing in the game-geek teenage sons of army officers, to help out and advise on the development of wargames. The U.S. Marine Corps and Navy followed suit shortly thereafter.

For about a decade, the United States military has been using commercial game engines for developing training simulations and wargames. That means that these army training games look very much like commercial games that use the same engine. Other countries have picked up on this, as their young men have also been spending many hours with computer and console games. The United States has led the way in merging the games with warfare. Not only do the military versions provide more effective, and painless, training, but gaming skill has proved directly transferable to many electronic equipment and computer controlled weapons.

All this is very reminiscent of the American experience during World War II. In the two decades before World War II, radios and automobiles became widely used products. The young men going into the American armed forces in the early 1940s had grown up mesmerized by radio and automobiles. Many of them had learned how to tinker with radios and automobiles, and transferred this experience to their military duties. This gave the American armed forces a major advantage, as the U.S. forces were able to use lots more technology, very efficiently, in combat.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htcbtsp/articles/20060323.aspx

...displacing for-profit American companies in doing so, but it's beyond the pale for an American State-owned (by the feds or the states) company to run our ports?

To build a fancy recruitment tool, that uses the latest video game technology, and give it away for free, then I have a problem

Shame on Epic Games for allowing the Unreal engine to be used for blatant military propaganda.

As awful as this is, as this game will be using the Unreal Engine 3.0 (which is absolutely mindblowing BTW), and they're giving it away for free, I'll definitely be picking it up. And yes, the game does glamorize war and violence.

Atari published a few of their games a few years back, but their current publisher is Midway.

Epic handles Unreal engine liscences because they make the engine. It's their bread and butter.

And they are NOT giving it away for "free". Your tax dollars paid for it all. You bought it.

but I refused to touch AA. Like you said using my tax dollars to try to recruit kids with video games is bullshit. The nice thing is that the majority of gamers wouldn't go in the military anyway, it's just not their style.

Please...it's a rip, and it always has been. An imitation of better games, and serious devotees of online games of this genre will check out American Army, but the insistence on using their servers makes most pretty damn skittish, and they avoid their games like the plague.

They said the "gold standard" of 'advergames' - not the gold standard of games in general. I assume advergames overall probably suck, so it's not too hard to be the op dog in that area...

...made entirely for entertainment by a gaming company that wants to sell it and make a buck, I would defend that game as much as I would defend any other form of media that is protected by the first amendment.

But it seems obvious that the whole point of the game is to promote the Army, and get the Army's message to millions of young males -- their target audience for recruiting. Which is why they are spending millions of dollars on it. So yes, you are right, the purpose is to promote war and desensitize boys to killing (which is what the Army does).

So, you're not going to get any "It's just a game" rationalizations from me on this one.

My impulse thought was it's just a game, regardless of who developed it and was thinking that being against it would be no different then being against Grand Theft Auto. But then I realized the difference that makes this game outside that normal argument. Like you said, this game was made not for entertainment, but with the intent of influencing the gamer to be pro-army and be desensitized to the horrors of war. The difference with GTA is that people complain about it claiming it can corrupt our kids; but GTA was made solely for entertainment purposes and is played for that reason.

Now if the makers of GTA made the game in such a propagandic way with solid intent to try and specifically influence the gamer to beat up on cops, brutally kill people and steal without conscience, then I'd probably be against it too.

So yes, I do see that distinction, and do agree this is bigger then just the "it's just a game" argument.

and (as can be plainly seen by looking at the numbers) it's not recruiting any kids into the army.

As for the merits of the game; it's no counterstrike and IMO counterstrike isn't that special. The ridiculous basic training that they force you to go through adds to the monotony. It's not near as good a game as the "Battlefield" series and in terms of being a combat simulation is doesn't even begin to approach Operation Flashpoint which was a great ground combat sim. The "Call of Duty" series (set in WWII) is probably the best military FPS out there right now.

Kids that sit at home and play computer games are not the type of kids that will go into the army.

The Call of Duty series is the best of the best.

Playing that game with my headphones on gets my heart racing a mile a minute. As I hear the bullets whiz past, many times I'm tempted to flinch and I'm actually concerned about getting killed. It's a very intense game and as far as I know, the closest thing you'll get to the real thing on a computer screen. Amazing game, especially if you have the hardware to run it well.

Most videogames are created solely for entertainment and clearly draw a line between fantasy and reality. They don't actually encourage players to go out and recreate the experiences offered in the game. This one actively glamorizes killing and encourages players to take part in it. This is probably the only game I can feel comfortable calling a "murder simulator." Plus, I'm surprised that the US gov't, which is generally against gaming, created a first-person shooter.

That is EXACTLY what these games do to a generation who was raised on Nintendo and Xbox -- everything is a fucking game, even when you kill. In fact, the more blood and gore, the merrier, especially if you're in control and can quit the game at any time at the click of a mouse.

War was, is, and always will be hell. To market it otherwise is unconscionable.

...as Hillary has made headlines railing against violent video games.

Any way you look at it, it's a total mind fuck.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America's_Army

It just doesn't add up...we have a multi-billion dollar industry based upon repeated imagery used to influence behavior, to get people to buy your stuff. But somehow the game industry wants us to believe repeated viewings of their product does not influence behavior. Bullshit.

I object to tax dollars being used to promote this game just because I don't think tax dollars should be used to promote any sort of game, especially with the economy in the mess it's in. However, as someone who is a gamer and has actually, you know, played it, if you think it glorifies war you are sadly mistaken. If anything, it goes out of its way to be hyper realistic, as opposed to every other modern war based FPS. This is not a game about mindlessly fragging shit, and going into it with the typical FPS mindset is liable to get you killed.

It's not a recruitment tool at all. If anything, it's a wakeup call to what actual combat is like, and is likely to drive people away from the military.

And, for the eleven billionth time (because DU apparently can't seem to understand this): gamers are not stupid. We are not mindless sheep.

The games are media. Media influences. You can use whatever standard you want to judge the effect of media on attitudes or opinion. You obviously don't give it any credence, I do. I believe it will have an impact on future generation's attitudes toward war as the military moves to more remote warfare against human targets.

I hope the effort falls flat. I hope the violence discourages folks from joining to war. I think it does the opposite. It's sickening to me.

It is an advertisment for the military. It is aimed at our children. They promote their militarism to influential minds. I oppose this recruiting tool as I do all of the other 'tools' the military uses to make its killing business look fun.

Btw, not being a 'gamer' shouldn't keep folks from opining on this Army program. I don't have to roll around in the Army **** to know that it stinks.