I must confess, I did, rather purposefully, build something of a straw-man here. I do back each of my points fully, though I drew them out to more of an extreme than I normally would, hoping to incite some real debate.

Ever since the first “Age of Empires” game by Microsoft, I have thought of the potential for video games as education tools. Not merely the “edutainment” brands of software, but mass-market based games. I don’t know if you’ve ever played the game, but before each mission, the load screen contained a number of historical facts related to the two sides engaged in conflict on that particular map.

Now, I wouldn’t want to site those games on any paper or even necessarily in college, but what if the games were certified? What if a publisher had a historian on-hand to provide verifiable facts? The game wouldn’t have to be didactic but something simple like providing facts on the load screen would certainly add value to the product.

As to the specific point about these war games, sure, they could be educational. However, if that were the case, I think a lot of players would be miffed about certain facts. What if you could have, for the sake of argument, ten thousand players on one map of Normandy. Each player is on one of the landing ships and each gets one life. Now, to teach people about how brutal the Normandy invasion was, I’d say at least fifty percent of the players would be killed seconds after the doors drop and the “game” starts. Another percent would die running up to the bunkers and machine-gun nests, and so on. It could be a very “Saving Private Ryan” moment. A real lesson in what it means to fight a war, harsh though it may be.

The positive effects of war games that you mention, I don’t really consider being very positive. Sure, you could train people in strategy, that, I believe, is one of the main points of the United States Army developing their own video game/recruitment tool. Now, while I do agree that video game do increase hand-eye coordination, if you’ve ever fired a gun, the movements involve are not quite analogous to playing with thumbsticks or a mouse and keyboard. So, those benefits are probably negligible, assuming you think training civilians to be killers is a good thing. Finally, I’m not sure how valuable playing a game is in regards to reaction time, when the full effects of having bullets whiz by your head and mortar rounds quaking the earth around you cannot accurately be simulated in today’s games.

Speaking to your last points, I don’t think I’m too far outside of the mainstream when I say that, yes, I do think it is wrong that many companies profited from World War II. Sure, the rapid industrialization necessary to fight World War II ended the Great Depression, but what started the Great Depression in the first place? A Stock Market inflated by a number of questionable practices. I don’t remember all of the reasons, but the example that still sticks out in my mind from high school was of the Empire State Building being built on a foundation of match sticks. Not too far off from the situation the market is facing today, though that’s neither here nor there.

I suppose it is acceptable that in a capitalist society, companies that were directly responsible for producing necessary war materiel were able to turn a profit off of it. However, that’s not a situation I’d like to see repeated too often as it is, to say the least, troublesome. Perhaps you are aware of President Eisenhower’s warnings against the vast military-industrial complex built up to fight the communists. Getting back to EA, I do have a problem with a company trading on the lives of millions of people for entertainment. When the WWII vets were trying to collect money for a national monument, maybe EA could have blunted some of my criticism by offering a large donation from the games based on that very conflict. Maybe they did, I haven’t looked into it all that deeply, but I’d be very surprised if they did, and would issue an apology here on Aelon. Not that they would necessarily care one way or another.

Finally, to your larger point about war having beneficial affects…I mostly disagree. Sure, World War II was probably necessary. I’d be hard-pressed to find a rational human being willing to say Hitler and the Nazis should have been left unopposed. However, World War II was the direct outgrowth of a conflict that didn’t really need to happen, obviously, World War I. War is rarely a good thing and largely represents a catastrophic failure in the governments perpetuating it.

I do agree with you. I’ve certainly created an argument that is easily attacked from a number of vectors. However, and this may be my pride in authorship, but I have yet to face an attack capable of dealing a fatal blow to my hypothesis.

A point that I noticed in your original argument stated that it is wrong for a company such as Electronic Arts to profit off the deaths of thousand of soldiers, but you can’t look past the fact that numerous companies profited directly off WWII. Are you to say that this is wrong too? You must remember that war in general can have some positive effects; an example can easily be seen as the great depression ended due to a large contribution from WWII.

You write a convincing argument but I feel it is too easy to attack.

Either I didn’t make my position clear enough, or you had trouble understanding my article.

I state specifically, that I have a problem with FPS games based on real wars, not on war games or FPS games generally. If you were going to attack my position, you might have been better served by questioning why I don’t have a problem with RTS games based on historic wars instead.

Furthermore, I didn’t: “make the comparison that people who actually fought in WWI/WWII/Vietnam don’t play these games” anywhere in my article. I said that those are the only people who I don’t have a problem with playing those games.

Finally, you’re probably right, I’m sure I am the only person who feels this way.

A game that is based off an actual event doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be turned into a game. The game doesn’t disrespect the event or people in it. Sure, a developer can disrespect the event, but in the games you mentioned that doesn’t happen (or in any war game for that matter).

You can’t make the comparison that people who actually fought in WWI/WWII/Vietnam don’t play these games, for the simple fact that video games are not part of their generation. There are several people I knew in high school that are now over in the Middle East, serving their country. One is a good friend of mine who I keep in contact with. In their off time they will play video games. Their favorite being war-based games. I actually picked up CoD4 because my buddy over in Iraq recommended it to me.

Are these people upset that a game was created based on the war their fighting? No. Do they feel disrespected? No. Are you the only person who feels this way? Probably.

I was wondering if someone was going to bring that up.

My thoughts on the movies are a bit more complicated and I might be parsing my position too finely to avoid charges of hypocrisy, but I’ll try.

The last war movie I watched was “Saving Private Ryan.” I watched it on the Fourth of July and I didn’t really think of it as entertainment. I was watching it as a reminder of what war is like and how it affects the people trapped in its current.

There isn’t anything really “fun” about “Saving Private Ryan.” The opening scenes on Omaha Beach with hundreds of soldiers being cut down by machine gun fire don’t elicit feelings of joy. The story of Private Ryan being the last of his brothers to survive the war isn’t uplifting. Seeing many of the characters you grow to like be used as sniper bait or be slowly stabbed, bleed to death, or being destroyed by a tank isn’t a fun experience.

While Spielberg and everyone else associated with the movie surely made money, the film seemed respectful of both the situation and the people involved.

I don’t get the same impression from the games. Death has no finality in a game, therefore, it has no meaning. That, to me, is the main difference between war games and war movies.

The other difference is I play games to have fun. If I’m going to see a war movie, it isn’t because I want to have a good time in the same way I expect from a game.