With all the controversy in the news, video games are quickly becoming somewhat of a hot issue in politics. I'd like to talk about one of the popular game genres- war games. Specifically a title called
"Battlefield 2", which pits up two teams of up to 32 players against each other, on a modern-day battlefield with modern day weapons.
Why? Well, I'd like to examine the implications of games like this, and hopefully dispel some common myths surrounding them. Details below the fold...
First off, I will admit to being slightly biased- I work in the video game industry (though not for
Electronic Arts, which publishes the game.) It's also become somewhat of our lunchtime entertainment at work.
What it is-
Battlefield 2 is the sequel to Battlefield: 1942, an immensely popular game that was based around WW2, and let the player take part in recreations of famous battles during that war. Both titles are ESRB rated "Teen" for violence. In each title, no blood is actually shown. (Graphic depictions of bloodshed will give a game an M rating, or 17+.) If a player's character is killed, they just collapse... or fly through the air like a rag-doll (if they were hit by artillery.) Otherwise, the graphics are fairly realistic, as these screenshots from EA's website will show:
http://images.ea.com/eagames/official/battlefield/battlefield2/us/screenshots/set6_full3.jpg
http://images.ea.com/eagames/official/battlefield/battlefield2/us/screenshots/ns/full3.jpg
http://images.ea.com/eagames/official/battlefield/battlefield2/us/screenshots/ns/full1.jpg
The gameplay is squad and team based; you select your field kit (assault, engineer, medic, anti-tank, etc.), then join a squad with up to five other players, and the squad leader (selected by vote or commander) gives orders to your team. The team's commander (selected by team vote) has a detailed overhead map, and can issue orders to squad leaders- there can be as many as six squads per team, and it's the commander's job to keep them working with a coordinated battle plan. The commander also has access to a radar and remote spy plane to locate enemy units, and can call in supply drops and artillery strikes.
The vehicles are realistic, and each player's character will occupy a different seat inside (usually with a different duty as well.) For example, in an Apache attack helicopter, one player will act as the pilot, while other player will be the gunner, controlling the machinegun turret and laser-guided missiles. The dune buggies pictured in the screenshots above can hold three players- a driver and two gunners.
Gameplay is based around capturing strategic points on the map, which are marked by flags. To capture a strategic point, several player's characters need to be in close proximity to the flag. When they are, their team's colors will be raised on the flagpole- the more characters close to the flag, the quicker the colors rise. Capturing strategic points is important because if your character gets killed, they will 'respawn' at one of these points; if the enemy team has captured all of the strategic points, your character won't be able to respawn, and your team will lose if all its characters are killed.
Screenshot- capturing a flag:
http://images.ea.com/eagames/official/battlefield/battlefield2/us/screenshots/set4_full7.jpg
Screenshot- commander's map, with flag and troop locations:
http://images.ea.com/eagames/official/battlefield/battlefield2/us/common/prima_image_02.jpg
What it does-
Now, what are the implications of this sort of game? What does this game teach the player?
The first one is obvious- it teaches teamwork; a vital real-world skill. Each player needs to coordinate with both their squadmates and the other squads to help their team win. If they've got a problem they can't handle (such as an enemy tank rolling up to their flag), they have to call in someone who can handle it.
It also teaches strategy, both real and abstract- for example, the tanks are armored so that they take more damage from the rear (just like in real life), and the commander must decide which objectives are important- if the enemy is coming down the center of the map in one huge group, is it better to meet them head on? Or abandon the center and split up to capture points on either side?
In these days, as well, it gives the players some concept of what our troops are facing on the battlefield. The stress of enemy contact, dealing with soldiers who think like they do, even some of the dangers of urban warfare- snipers or soldiers with RPGs hiding in buildings, and how our troops have to deal with them. Granted, it's not a totally realistic simulation, due to both computer limitations and gameplay limitations; there's no civilians, and your character will 'respawn' or come back to life if killed. Most (if not all) players recognize the game as an abstraction, anyway, and would never expect to respawn if shot in real life. (If they do, they should seek professional help immediately.)
What it doesn't-
One of the common misconceptions about games like this is they teach the players "how to kill". This is not true; it may teach you to prioritize targets, such as taking out the anti-tank infantry before they can blow up your tank. However, after playing the game, while the character I played could do everything simulated, I myself have no clue how to drive a tank, pilot a helicopter, or shoot an M16A1 in real life (I'd probably accidentally launch a grenade at me feet if I tried.) I don't have the "thousand-yard stare" either.
Do they desensitize the players to violence? That's debatable; Battlefield 2 is less graphic than the Six-O'Clock news. Even when playing more graphic, "M" rated games, I know I'm just shooting pixels- colors on a monitor, which represent characters. I'd never hurt a fly in real life. (I even try to capture spiders I find in the house and release them outside.)
Do they increase aggressive tendancies? That's also debatable. Some people argue games like this actually release tension and stress- after all, it's better than going berserk in the office with a shotgun.
Should kids play it? That depends on the kid- some are more mature than others. Would you let your kid watch an R rated movie? PG-13? It's the same with video games; you should know what they're playing. (I assume most people reading this don't have a problem with figuring out what the kids are doing while on the computer; you're computer literate enough to work a browser and post comments.)
And now, I'll close with a poll and open the floor to debate: