Kill Screen

Is the new crop of hyperrealistic military video games driving home the reality of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, or simply exploiting them?

BY MATTHEW SHAER | OCTOBER 27, 2010

Earlier this year, Electronic Arts, one of the biggest video-game publishers in the world, rented out both chambers of the Edison Ballroom in midtown Manhattan for its annual exhibition of holiday titles. Electronic Arts uses the expo to gin up excitement among gaming journalists, and by the time I got there, in the early afternoon, the ballroom was filled to capacity. I passed gaggles of bloggers playing the new Need for Speed racing franchise and the latest iteration of FIFA Soccer and headed toward a dais near the back of the building, where Craig Owens, an Electronic Arts marketing director, was demonstrating a much-anticipated first-person war shooter called Medal of Honor.

Medal of Honor is not a particularly young franchise. The first installment of the game debuted on the Sony PlayStation in November 1999 with a World War II-themed plot written in part by director Steven Spielberg. The game was bloody, vivid, and chaotic -- a kind of first-person Saving Private Ryan. But it retained enough of an arcade feel -- the enemy arrived in great, unending, and totally shootable waves - that gamers could have fun with it, too. Dozens of sequels (Pacific Assault, European Assault, and Rising Sun among them) have followed, all featuring bygone conflicts; most have sold fairly well. But the 2010 edition of Medal of Honor was something new: a "reboot," set in contemporary Afghanistan, and starring American special operations troops.

Owens, who is in his 40s, was wearing a striped button-down and a dark beard, which I later learned he grew out as part of a "beard-a-thon" to raise money for fallen soldiers. He waved a controller in my direction. "C'mon," he said. "Sit down."

I watched as he steered his avatar on foot up a steep mountain pass, toward a Taliban-held village; his fellow soldiers fanned out alongside him. Shadows flickered over the road, and someone off-screen muttered something in a language that might have been Pashto. The village was surreally calm. In a narrow alley, hard between two low-slung houses, Owens finally came face to face with two Taliban. He squeezed the trigger on his PlayStation 3 controller; on the screen, the muzzle of his assault rifle flared, and both guerrillas disappeared in soft pink puffs of blood. "This is going to be the most realistic war game yet," Owens said with a grin.

Medal of Honor, which debuted Oct. 12, largely delivers on Owens's boast -- and for some critics, therein lies the problem. Not long after the Edison Ballroom expo, Electronic Arts began receiving complaints from an array of politicians and veterans-rights groups, ranging from former U.S. Rep. Scott McInnis (R-Colo.), who questioned the moral integrity of the Electronic Arts staff, to a spokesman for the organization AMVETS, who argued that "products like this trivialize combat." Alabama's Montgomery Advertiser newspaper published an editorial urging retailers to refuse to sell Medal of Honor and consumers to refuse to buy it. "To release a video game that shows such death in such a graphic way is shameful and an insult to the families of the men and women in uniform who have died [overseas], and will die in the future," the editorialists wrote.

The game's detractors were mostly concerned with Medal of Honor's multiplayer mode, in which players could assume the role of Taliban guerrillas and shoot at U.S. troops. "I don't see how shooting soldiers based on real Americans is entertainment while people are dying every day for this country," Karen Meredith, the mother of Ken Ballard, a U.S. Army lieutenant killed in Iraq, told the San Jose Mercury News in August. "How can they say it's OK for someone to play the Taliban? You'll have people sitting at home, drinking beer, shooting at American soldiers, maybe missing, then starting over. Well, Ken didn't have a chance to start over."

In September, in response to what it stiffly described to Stars and Stripes as "well-documented reports of depictions of Taliban fighters engaging American troops," the Army and Air Force Exchange Service announced that it would move to block sales of Medal of Honor on military bases around the country. (Some of the most avid consumers of combat-oriented video games today are American soldiers who play them when they're not preoccupied with the real thing.) Electronic Arts called the ban and the criticism "disappointing," but eventually agreed to drop the Taliban from the multiplayer mode, albeit in name only: Gamers are still invited to shoot at simulacra of U.S. soldiers, and the Taliban avatars themselves are unchanged, but they're now labeled "Opposing Force" rather than "Taliban."

It was a controversy that wouldn't have occurred even five or six years ago. For most of the medium's history, video game studios seemed to be reticent about tackling contemporary conflicts, preferring instead to crank out games based in abstracted worlds and full of abstracted enemies. The baddies were aliens, zombies, heads of multinational corporations, or some unholy combination thereof -- the video-game equivalent of Hollywood's stock villains with ambiguous Eastern European accents. Until relatively recently, there were "almost no games set in current military conflicts," Tristan Donovan, the author of Replay: The History of Video Games, told me. "If they are out there, they were very minor releases that went largely unnoticed."

This had something to do with the nature of warfare in the post-Vietnam, pre-9/11 era, in which conflicts came and went before they would have even made it off the game designers' drawing boards. "The first Gulf War and the Falklands War, for example, lasted only a few months, and so there was little time for game companies to commission, create, and release games about those conflicts while they were taking place," Donovan says. Games that alluded to real-world wars came out long after the fact and approached their subjects obliquely; 1992's Sega Mega Drive game Desert Strike, for example, was inspired by the first Gulf War, but its designers set it in a second, fictional war in Iraq -- it may have been prescient, but it wasn't realistic. A handful of video games released in the early 2000s that looked back at the Vietnam War, including Shellshock: Nam '67 and Vietcong, caused minor ripples in the media, but nothing close to Medal of Honor-grade controversy.

Electronic Arts

 

Matthew Shaer has written for the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, and the Boston Globe, among other publications. His first book will be published next year.

Facebook|Twitter|Reddit

GRANT

8:01 PM ET

October 27, 2010

I can't say for sure whether

I can't say for sure whether or not this is simply profiting from current conflicts, but personally I don't see anything I dislike. I would actually encourage people (especially soldiers) to play as Taliban fighters simply so they can ask themselves "how would I strive for victory if I were fighting a heavily armed and armored American force?"

On Bogost's last comment, I seriously doubt any company will be able to make a game like that for at least a decade but I rather wish that they would.

 

MYSTIKIEL

9:29 PM ET

October 27, 2010

"When our loved one's 'health meter' dropped to '0

'"When our loved one's 'health meter' dropped to '0,' they didn't get to 'retry' the mission," the sister of a fallen soldier said at the time.'

Yes, because its a game. Its not real. Just like prostitutes probably don't expect Richard Gere to stop by in his Bentley and propose to them.

You could shoot Americans as Nazis in Battlefield 1942, released 10 years ago. You could shoot them as Vietcong in Battlefield Vietnam 5 years ago, and as Chinese soldiers in Battlefield 2, 3 years ago. There is nothing particularly new about any of this.

Graphical realism aside, neither the Battlefield series nor the Medal of Honor series are intended to be realistic depictions of war (if that's more your style, you could try playing "America's Army", a game published by (ahem) the United States Department of Defence.

 

WHISKEYPAPA

9:58 AM ET

October 28, 2010

Chuck Yeager Air Combat

It must have been almost 20 years ago that this game came out. Sure you wanted to fly a Mustang or Lightning.

But it was fun to take an ME-262 with those 30mm cannon and buzzsaw B-17's too.

Walt

 

MALICEIT

12:00 AM ET

October 28, 2010

RE:

Why don't Russians, Koreans, Chinese, Zombies, Nazis protest against violence from American side ? After all pile of bullshit like "oh he looks like my son who was KIA" and "AMG, they shouldn't be allowed to play as taliban" creates a simple and very intriguing question: Do you realize that its pile of pixels shooting pixels at pixels and killing pixels ? When operators of UAV drones kill real humans and stare at same pixels no one jumps up and yells: "they shouldnt play UAV video games !!!". If you want to scream of morality of shooting pixels you might as well start yelling at CIA. Also on realism of video games: most of video games you play as 1 to 4 person squad against 200 enemies, after that go ahead and replicate that in real life.

 

BIRDFLEW

3:07 AM ET

October 28, 2010

There's bigger issues

I'll never understand the preoccupation people have with video game violence.

As previous commenters have pointed out, games allowing you to shoot at Americans have existed for decades (along with games allowing you to shoot at virtually any other nationality, or creature, imaginable).

As devistating as a loss of a family member would be, attacking video games will not bring them back, nor honour their memory. Medal of Honor seems to have simply become a whipping boy for people who are grieving, and desperate for a target to blame.

Instead of allowing themselves to get so offended by depictions of warfare and violence, why then don't these people work to remove the real thing from the world? Video games don't kill people. Warfare does.

 

NICOLAS19

3:13 AM ET

October 28, 2010

the veterans just wanted some media spotlight

They got super-sensitive, wanted to be offended by something just to be able to say "our relatives who die for this country..." on prime time one more time. As mystikiel said, there's nothing new in shooting any nation's virtual sons on different platforms. It has been going on for decades now. If its OK to kill German soldiers (or Afghan, Japanese, Russian - just the 3 most popular) on the screen, it should be OK to kill US as well, they are the same people.
The magnificent feature of modern gaming that - with the enormous potential of modern hardware - they can re-create anything. That is no place for censorship. If you don't like it, don't buy it. There's the rating system to filter out violent/pornographic content for immature viewers, but that should be it. The different rating-stamps on the box tell you all you need to know to make the decision whether you want to buy it or not. I don't want a self-righteous war-veteran censor officer second-guessing my games, standing in my living room, watching, judging and filtering what should I do on my own systems.

 

NAPALMTHOM

8:07 AM ET

October 28, 2010

Nicolas, I'd like to

Nicolas,
I'd like to understand your comment that it's OK to kill US soldiers in a video game because "they are the same people." Do you mean in the digital sense, or in actuality?

Having served in Iraq 3 times, and as a guy who struggled with the nature of the mission at times, I can tell you, that we are not the same. Our code of conduct, application of the Law of War, swift justice for violators of said law, and painstaking attention to the safety of the populace (at greater risk to our lives), tells me we are remarkably different.

That being said, I don't care if you game against a digital version of me. I do however have a problem with marginalizing the concerns of a parent of one of the fallen. She, just like any of us, can say whatever she wants to. Another striking way in which the American, and American Soldier are not the same people.

 

NICOLAS19

5:58 AM ET

October 29, 2010

no, you got me wrong

By "the same people" I'm referring to the fact that all soldiers are humans regardless of nationality, so it isn't any more (or less) acceptable to virtually kill a US soldier than his German/Chinese/Afghan/etc counterpart.

 

OLUSEYI

10:43 AM ET

October 29, 2010

"I do however have a problem

"I do however have a problem with marginalizing the concerns of a parent of one of the fallen."

She needs to mind her business. Her son fought and died so we can have the freedom to play as the Taliban if we please. Her insisting that her feelings not be hurt (over something she probably will never witness and doesn't participate in, natch) is the precise antithesis of what her son's sacrifice represents. That is the staggering hypocrisy of this false veneration of "parents of the fallen."

 

WHISKEYPAPA

9:51 AM ET

October 28, 2010

Worse Problem

Does anyone know how to get past the elite guards in Castle Wolfenstein once you get to the church? The player guide was no help at all.

Walt

 

BLIKKETTY

10:39 AM ET

October 28, 2010

This article is both nonsense and incomplete.....

First off, how could you not mention the 2003 video game Delta Force , Black Hawk Down? Hello?? Real event, real Americans died, there was a movie first? Admittedly the video game was 10 years later, but perhaps researching anything members of the families who lost family members in that event had to say about the book and movie would be a more interesting angle than most of the tacks used here.

There could have been games before that were examples of conflicts still occuring, but you have two unique situations right now. The length of the recent conflicts is longer than the development cycle of a video game, and gaming is popular on par with other forms of media for the first time ever. Families of soldiers killed in battle were unaware of previous games, and the media would not have cared if those families were upset because gaming related stories were a niche product at best, and that niche didn't want to hear anti gaming rhetoric.

These families have every right to complain, but the creedence the media covering gives via coverage is the looney part. 50, 100 years ago "kids" played "cowboys and indians" and "war" (even while, GASP, wars where actually occuring!), back before the media made everyone too paranoid to let their children out of our sight. Can you imagine the media of those times with stories families saying stuff like "my grandpa was scalped and killed by the Indians, and when it was over, he didn't get to stand up and run home to his mommy and daddy for dinner"? Or any other combination or variant you can imagine from those childrens games? No, because IT"S RIDICULOUS.

Do you think those who lost family members in Afghanistan or Iraq Never watched a film or TV show or read a book where someone was killed? What's next, are families of Nascar drivers who died in crashes going to say the next Nascar 2011 or whatever game should be banned because "my son couldn't just press restart after his crash" or "my son couldn't just reload a saved game after his crash"?

I have every bit of sympathy for those who lost loved ones, in any manner, and they are free to express their opinion, and they can even use their sphere of influence to keep their children from playing games or annoy whoever is within shouting distance that they should not do this or that because of how their loved one died. However, as long as gaming companies cave on issues like this instead of meeting them with intelligent reasoning and discourse, our country is headed down one long, dumb road. The media deserves a measure of fault as well, because in their pathetic attempts to cover this now more popular media, they invariably can only come up with stories like this played out canard.

 

TGBENNETT30

2:42 PM ET

October 28, 2010

Largely a moot argument

The gaming community for PC users has a long history of modifying games in whatever ways suit their fancy. Some of these modifications are startlingly sophisticated and well-done.

If a game purports to have Taliban killing US soldiers and then removes that, I give it a day or two after the game is released before a someone makes a modification (or "mod") for download for free that makes it possible. Sure, a company has not profited by making such a game, but the end result is the same, people will be playing as Taliban and shooting US soldiers, and there is nothing anyone can do to stop it.

 

MARIK7

11:06 AM ET

October 29, 2010

With all due respect

One name of the game is capitalism. Another is entertainment.

People who object to the Taliban shooting at US soldiers should write to their Congressmen and Senators, urging them to demand a withdrawal from our everlasting wars. That would show their concern for the lives of their military sons and daughters far more clearly than objecting to a game where you can be "killed," wait a few seconds, and be back in action again.

 

MARIK7

11:08 AM ET

October 29, 2010

another tack

Of course, if you really dislike the idea of the Taliban killing US forces, then play the game poorly. When you do, the Taliban guy will get killed over and over again and you can feel good about yourself.

 

MUJOKAN

7:51 PM ET

November 1, 2010

History

The Army supports Full Spectrum Warrior as a free download, besides making America's Army as mentioned above. Their primary objection must be the multiplayer.

In candidates for the history of tactical shooters set in modern conflicts, Delta Force came out in 1998 and Operation Flashpoint in 2001. Terrorist games like Rainbow 6 or CounterStrike (1999) might be relevant also.

Medal of Honor games are always set in real locations, where other games can fudge things with different names for the country or the bad guys. That's the only reason this became a story. They wanted to do a modern tactical shooter but they couldn't have the country named Afraqistan or something.

 

FREQUENTFLYER

10:51 PM ET

November 1, 2010

"The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder

"The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder reported that neither of the Tier 1 operators that worked with Electronic Arts received official permission from U.S. Special Forces command; the precise nature of their involvement in the game remains somewhat sketchy...."

Better to ask forgiveness than permission. Anyway, God bless 'em; we put enough restrictions on our troops' as it is. They still have some rights to free speech and the pursuit of money!

 

ABELIAN

11:30 AM ET

November 2, 2010

Making a mountain out of a mole hill

These games are not meant to give any political, historical, or moral lessons. They are meant to be mindless fun.

 

SPECIALIZEDEED

8:34 PM ET

November 19, 2010

With all due respect

What's next, are families tatil of Nascar drivers who died in crashes going to sinema say the next Nascar 2011 or whatever game should be banned because "my son klip izle couldn't just press restart after his crash" or "my son couldn't just reload a saved game gazeteler after his crash"?