The Military and Video Games: Separating Fact From Fiction
by cajun4life, HSM team writer
When I wrote my first article, I got a lot of questions about the military. Since I did mention I was in the military, a lot of people were asking and wondering: how would I compare videogame battlefields to the real thing?
To tell you guys the truth, I am in the U.S. Navy, which — compared to the U.S. Army or Marines — really never sees the “battlefield,” like you do in some games. So I did a little asking around to not only the Navy, but to the Army and Marines, and found out how some miltary members feel about your most popular video war games, and which one would they say is the closest to the real thing. What I found out even surprised me.
When it comes to the multiplayer version of all the games, every military person I asked said one thing the same:
One huge missing detail of all the games that is not the same as in real life is the fact that when playing multiplayer, everyone is pretty much on their own, instead of working as a team. In the military – especially in boot camp – whatever branch you are in, one of the things you learn is how to work as a team. You have a leader who gives out the orders, and you have the lower-ranked people who follow these orders. This aspect is largely missing from the games themselves.
The game that most of the military and I agree that came the close to this, but is still not like the real thing, is – believe it or not – Mag. Most of Mag’s multiplayer matches have an objective to meet, where players must work as a team to be able to win. Most of your multiplayer games do have areas of the game where there is an objective to meet, but most are to “kill the enemy” – which is basically just about everyone that isn’t you.
Plus, in games like Call of Duty’s “Search and Destroy” matches, you have an objective to plant a bomb on an object or defend an object. But even in this kind of match, you have people who play and are more worried about getting the experience points for themselves, than working as a team to win the match.
Here is something interesting I found out, too. Like one military gamer told me, who is in a clan on Socom 4, that while playing, before they play together in a match, they do have brief training exercises, and practice battles which – in a sense – is like the military. This is another example – going back to my other article about Playstation Home and clubs – where the community has created a missing aspect of a game, which I think is really cool.
This next aspect of video games that is different than real life “battlefield” might offend some people in ways. I am sorry if it does, but it was mentioned by a lot of military gamers: how many shots it takes to kill the enemy in the multiplayer part of the games. I have played most of the popular video games, and I find it funny how in most, it takes a whole magazine to kill the enemy. Even with sniper weapons, unless you hit the head, it takes two to three shots to kill the enemy.
Now, granted, some games have made a “hardcore” version of the multiplayer game, where it takes a lot less shots to “kill” the enemy; but, unlike real life, if you hit the enemy – even in the leg – they are down and out. In real life, we know this is not true. Also, some of your games have outfits that you can wear to increase your health, and it takes a lot more shots to kill that person. In the real world, sure, there are bulletproof vests, but even if you get hit with one on, you are going to feel it, and it will break what you were doing in a little or a lot of ways.
Other aspects that were mentioned about the difference is in most of the multiplayer games, you have maps to let you know where you are. The reality is, you are not going to be able to look at a map and shoot at your enemy with accuracy. Now, there are modes of the game that adjust to this; for example, we go back to the hardcore style of Call of Duty; Black Ops. In Black Ops’ “hardcore” mode, you do not have a map until someone earns a UAV. So you have to learn each map to be able to know where you need to go, to be able to defeat the enemy. In this area, it is a little more like real life battlefield, with the exception of the actual map itself.
Now then. That was all multiplayer aspects of the video games. What about the single-player side of them?
Out of all the “battlefield” type war games, there is only one that most all said gave them a taste of being in the real thing. It’s not Battlefield, its’s not Mag, it’s not SOCOM. It’s not even my favorite out of the bunch, Call of Duty.
Believe it or not, it’s the most quiet video game out there. What I mean by the most “quiet” game out there is that you really don’t hear much about this game. You heard about it when it came out, but after that, you really didn’t hear much from it. The game that I am talking about is Medal of Honor.
Medal of Honor has really gone the distance, us military folks feel, that best describes the “battlefield” aspect of real life combat. Even though it takes a lot to die, you get the taste of bullets flying by, bombs going off near you, taking orders from a higher up and doing the job, as well as feeling good about yourself when you are able to complete the job.
What I meant about the last part – and I am sure I speak for all military gamers – is that just like in the military, when you have finished your deployment, and completed the mission, you have that great sense of pride.
Now yes, it is a little different pride than playing the game, but you still get a taste of that pride when you have beaten the whole game, of any of the “battlefield” war games. But a major difference between the two prides is this; one is a video game, and the other is about four more paragraphs of information about that special type of pride, and that still would not tell all about our pride, because each one is different in its own way. The only way to really feel that pride is to join the military, and complete that mission you thought you would never be able to do. I know that in the Navy, when you finish that final phase of boot camp, when you recieve that Navy ball cap, you feel the pride that I am talking about.
In reality, these are just video games. Yes, they all in their own way have some small taste of the real thing, but it’s only a small taste in comparison.
Videogames are supposed to be fun, which all these games are. So, how far would you really want to go, to make a game seem like real life battlefield? There are some things to think about before you would create this kind of a game.
One thing for sure: it will never be 100% accurate to real life. As we all know, the military (regardless of nation) has a lot of information they cannot put out, especially for a video game; a video game that the whole world would see.
Also, another thing to think about would be the graphics of the game. As we have all seen on the news, war can be very distrubing to a lot of people, so you would have to be careful there. Look at what happened to Call of Duty, when Modern Warfare 2 came out. One level caused huge problems, to where in one of their patches, they had to change the beginning where it asked you if certain scenes would disturb you and if so, you could remove them from the game.
So like I said before: how far would you want a video game to go, to make it seem like real life? Remember, you have the user to think about, you have parents to think about, and you have a country to think about.
I do believe that these videogames have done a great job in creating a real life ‘battlefield’-type game, and with technology, graphics are going to get better and better. I have read a lot of information about the upcoming game Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3, where in the multiplayer mode, they are trying to make it where players do work together in the match, by bringing perks to the table, where certain perks will be used for your clan.
Also, for those of you that don’t visit the PlayStation Home Community Theater, they have a podcast on there by UrgentFury, which from my understanding, changed the way clans battle on Socom 4. You may want to check it out.
The thing I am trying to stress here is just like the community in PlayStation Home, who are filling the gaps of certain aspects missing in Home, the gaming community has starting to see signs of areas missing in games. Gaps which are being filled by the community itself.
So, I guess my main point of that last paragraph, and how I am going to end this one, is almost the same way I ended my last article. Playing games with friends makes that game so much more fun. Try joining a clan, or forming one with your friends. If you would like it to be more like the military, form that clan with a leader, have rank structure, have meetings, have exercises, just like they do in the real military. We can do all of that ourselves in the gaming community, which in turn will make the game that much better to play.
July 16th, 2011 by cajun4life | 11 comments
Been a gamer for a while, but a quiet gamer. In other words I am selective on the games I play. I also love computers. But, due to my military life, I usually have to put those last. But I still enjoy it as much as I can.
I’m not a FPS gamer by any means, but I have discovered how fun it can be to play online with friends. And I have to say that these elements of unreality you’ve mentioned have spoiled my enjoyment of several games, because shooter games are supposed to be somewhat realistic, right? So what is with all this running and gunning? And why am I usually fighting all alone? But thank you for mentioning Medal of Honor because now I know where to look for that more realistic experience I want.
for more reality, you should try ARMA II & add-on…
I don’t play FPS either, but this was a great article cajun. The explanation was well wrought and informative. My son loves these games so it was great to hear an explanation.
To me, one of the big differences between *any* FPS game and actual combat is the threat of bodily harm. I actually do enjoy a few FPS games, but usually it’s the early levels — where it’s more about stealth and concealment than bloodbath — which are more interesting to me.
In a video game, you can go on a Rambo killing spree and not really care if you get shot. You memorize where your enemies are, playing the same level over and over, until you can more or less do a flawless-victory run through the level like Daniel Day-Lewis running through the Appalachians with two rifles in his hands.
In actual combat, however, you *don’t* know where your enemies are, and the threat of actually getting shot and wounded or killed really does change things. All of a sudden, you keep your head down a hell of a lot more, and you work with your teammates to get through it.
The closest civilian experience to actual armed combat that I can think of — and no, it’s not like real military conflict at all — is paintball. Back when I was teaching martial arts, a whole bunch of us got together and formed a paintball team. We trained together, went on maneuvers, studied our battlefields before entering them, even bought specialized equipment (trust me on this: paintball bouncing betties are amazing) for various missions. We were actually pretty good.
Three incidents I’ll never forget:
1. Being pinned down behind an obstacle with three opponents triangulated on me, and no backup or support (this was late in the game, and our side was losing badly). My brain, in a very surreal and calm fashion, realized: “I’m being shot at. I can hear the rounds clanging against the wall. I’m not going to make it out of this.” You then have to choose how you want to “die,” because it’s endgame. The *finality* of that moment has never left me.
2. Getting shot dead-center in the chest. I’d been having a great round, had already racked up several kills, and my Tippmann jammed. I looked down for only a couple of seconds, and my opponent — blind-firing — managed to nail me. Never mind the fact that my opponent was disqualified for an illegal tactic; I was still dead. Actual combat has no rules. Forget the outrage of being “killed” — I’ll never forget staring at the bruise on my chest in the mirror that night.
3. Sending someone to the hospital. An opponent tried a flanking charge, and in one of those eerie out-of-body experiences, I turned, twisted, sighted and fired in one fluid motion. He simply fell. The round was pretty much over at that point, but we knew something was wrong — he wasn’t getting up. Turned out I’d nailed the guy dead-center in the forehead right below his hairline, between his mask and headgear, where there was no protection. Head wounds, of course, bleed like you can’t imagine. But the kinetic impact — it was at fairly close range — had scalloped a nice crater. I heard, later, that he’d been taken to the nearby hospital. The cost of my epic-win moment of triumph was scarring someone else for life.
I just haven’t been into FPS games that much since then. No, I’m not a pacifist. No, I’m not anti-military (I come from a military family, ferchrissakes). Nor do I have an issue with defending myself if necessary. But, as cajun points out in this article, the frequent *un*reality of the genre bothers me. I’ve always felt that if you’re going to depict war, then depict WAR. Not the sterilized, appropriate-for-all-ages, bodies disappearing nonsense.
(Interestingly enough, one of the most memorable war depictions in any FPS game I’ve ever played was from Medal of Honor: Frontline, with the opening scenes of the Normandy invasion. Some of that got my attention.)
Since the threat of actual harm doesn’t exist in FPS games — and won’t until they become immersive 3D virtual-reality experiences with tactile sensations — there either has to be some major deterrent to dying in these games, in order to give players an incentive to stay alive, or a strong and engrossing storyline (in single-player mode) to emotionally engage the player and make him want to keep his NPC comrades alive.
Fantastic article, cajun.
Good article here. I’ve been a Socom player since Socom 2 and have also played Medal of Honor and Call of Duty as well but really have stayed away from those as of late since i’m not into FPS and they just seem too arcadey for my taste. Also i’ve always found SOCOM to be more team oriented than those other shooters(never played MAG) but the general rule in Socom is that you’re going to get waxed if you try to go it alone or don’t communicate with your teammates. Plus Socom has the added distincition of being the only shooter I know that bases its multiplayer on having 1 life and if you screw up you have to sit til the next round. As far as I know Call of Duty and Medal of Honor don’t really have any round based play.
Being a military Vet I can tell you first hand I have never found a game to be even remotely close to what real life combat is like. It could be made but it would be a horrible game. Combat is a much slower process than anyone would imagine. I hear a lot of kids on home claiming to be vets but if you have served in any branch you can tell within 4 seconds who is truthful and who is making it up. Even a simple question like what unit was your basic training is always answered with a “I can’t remember” really that is as likely to happen as forgetting your mothers name. The next thing I come across is everyone seems to be special forces lol. I was an 11b(Infantry) with sniper training(Korea class 98/02) so I wasn’t an office paper pusher I worked around these guys often and it was an unforgettable life experience. Any other vets or if anyone has any questions feel free to get a hold of me anytime. HOOOOOOOOAH!
Yeah that is pretty bad that people would actually go around claiming to have served in the military when they clearly have not. Definitely not something I will ever to do, I have too much respect for those that have put on the uniform. You’re right that a true war simulation would make for a terrible game but there are certainly some games that at least require some sort of thought process and working with others rather than just mindlessly running, gunning and respawning.
I think the issue is that we are converting from PvP to co-op. In PvP, I need to look out for me. In co-op, I can take some damage if I can help my teammate survive. But knowing when and how to do this is a new problem solving skill the masses have not acquired yet.
Why? Because the games are still being built wrong. They still feature single player awards in team games. So my team can lose, but I win. In a real team game, the team losing should be everything. There needs to be acknowledgement and effort put forth so the team losing cannot be ignored. And a team win needs to be featured.
I hate games that list the highest fragger even when they are on the losing team AND when the goal was not fragging. It feels like a leftover they forgot to remove from the PvP side of the game.
I don’t play war games (or many video games anymore even though I have a lot and buy them still). Having said that as a disclaimer I enjoyed the article because it made me think. Teamwork is a guy often in life and often in sports save for games like tennis, golf, and ping pong (not making fun, no I’m not). I was in the Army so I can relate somewhat.
and I noticed after your name on the article credit it says team writer
Good luck cajun4life
I don’t think war games are fun. No, I’m not asking for censorship nor am I a pacifist. I grew up during WW II. If war games are to be realistic, then when a player gets killed it should be game over, locked out, disc destroyed. I doubt developers would ever program that.
I don’t know whether or not the games foster a stronger belief in their invulnerability for young men and women in combat situations. I wonder.
Upon reflection, I regret the previous post. If it can be done, please delete it.
The article is well, written and thoroughly researched. The comments have been thoughtful. To those of you who play military games, I wish: ”
After reflection, I regret the previous post. If I can be deleted, please do so. Thank you.
The article is well-written and thoroughly researched. The comments are thoughtful.
To those of you who play these games, I wish: “Good gaming and God bless you.”