• 1642 Days Ago
• 08/18/2007

It's ok to condemn this game.

It often seems that nowhere in the world is it more difficult to be black and white about morality than in the middle east. Though of course that's where everyone often seems the most black and white about ethical issues. That said, with all its faults, Israel is a democracy and a free society. Hezbollah is an admittedely terrorist organization one of whose core tenets is the destruction of Israel.

It doesn't make you less sympathetic to the Palestinians' plight or to the hardships of innocent civilians in southern lebanon during the war to say out loud that this videogame is horrifying, and wrong. It is. And should be condemned.

• 1642 Days Ago
• 08/18/2007

Jews are not special. Get over it.

There have been numerous games where Germans, Russians, Arabs, Vietnamese, Koreans, Chinese, Japanese and various south Americans are the designated enemy. We are not only talking about physical features, civilian clothing and uniforms. There is more to it: the video characters even speak the enemy's language, which makes it look/sound very realistic, and also enforces a cultural chauvinism...they speak X language, so we shoot them...

I also want to emphasize that these are mainstream games, sold and marketed by mainstream companies. We are not talking about some obscure niche. You can pick up these games today at Best Buy, CompUSA, Walmart etc.

And now somebody makes a game where the Jews are the enemy...and all of a sudden it is forbidden territory. Oh, please! Jews are not special. Grow up, and get over yourselves! Shalom!

• 1642 Days Ago
• 08/18/2007

Not just the Middle East...

I don't see how it's possible to get all upset about this game when the US Military is doing exactly the same thing - America's Army (http://www.americasarmy.com/).

Deliberately building a game to "educate" children and teenagers about techniques of war in order to recruit them is, in my opinion, quite a deplorable act - regardless of whether it's from the Middle East or from the USA.

• 1641 Days Ago
• 08/19/2007

Terrible Reporting

Erica should work on thinking about people other than herself when she reports.  The author attempts to be self-reflective and question why she isn't more disturbed by video games that portray future races but then the only example she can bring up of western video game violence is a Vietnam era game.  The obvious counterexample to the Hezbollah game where westerners are demonized and killed by middle eastern people is games where middle-eastern people are demonized and killed by the west.  There are many of these games.  The article would have been ok had the author actually had the courage to make a general critique of the ethics of games that condition anyone to kill another race but instead hides behind an outdated game relevant only to a past war while there is war going on in the middle east right now (more than one actually).  I think this is because author is letting her personal identity obscure clear and critical thinking and on some level is tacitly ok with games that condition people kill people of middle eastern heritage because each one killed is one less person that can threaten Israel.  What do games about Vietnam have anything to do with games that prepare people for future wars?  We're not going back to Vietnam any time soon.  Usually MIT Technology Review features pretty straight forward and objective reporting.  This blog posting is a disgrace to this magazine and the general tone it sets.  In the future, Erica should refrain from writing about anything that involves her personally because it will obviously hinder her ability to write hard hitting critical articles that cut to the bone of contemporary issues.  Instead she might opt for writing a wishy washy articles that can't take a stand because she actually only disagrees with something when it affects herself or Vietnamese in the 1960's.

Erica says "What other games exist with similarly disturbing rhetorical purposes?"  Why ask the audience?  Why not do the research yourself?  Is it too much work, feeling lazy?  Maybe you (the author) can't come up with the contemporary and relevant counter-example because it would involve too much looking into the mirror and asking some questions that are actually tough ethical questions.  Instead Erica uses a game about conflict that is settled and easy to be dispassionate about.  In this she is the epitome of a bad reporter, someone that is afraid to ask tough questions.  How about you give up writing for TR and go into making games about pink fuzzy bunnies or learn to ask some real questions and then answer them yourself.  Then report the answers to us.

• 1640 Days Ago
• 08/20/2007

The 'west' is right?

I don't really know why this game should be of any more concern then any other war game out there.
It would seem the 'west' believes that their culture is the only right way forward for this world. I am a part of the 'west' and I do firmly believe that our culture is the right way forward, however, I do understand that 'we' are only 1/5th of the worlds population (if we push it) and that 'our culture' in NO means represents the world.
Is there anybody who does NOT consider him/herself a part of the 'west' and can comment on 'our' wargames? I mean, when it comes to unnecessary(?) - leaving this open to opinion as this is how it could be viewed by non western countries - violence (invading irak, afghanistan, countless wars) i think the 'west' has centainly done it's part in it.
One game mentioned in a previous comment was 'americas armies' which was actually used to recruit soldiers. Honestly guys... how much worse is that?

• 1638 Days Ago
• 08/22/2007

response to comments so far

Thank you to everyone who took the time to make a comment.

@hillel, gabriel and griffin:
Your comments taken together lead me to draw a distinction based on the intention of the game. I'm thinking games designed with the intention to train and recruit future soldiers are morally more problematic than games designed for "entertainment" value - though I do still wonder what message is sent even by games meant for entertainment, when that entertainment is playing at killing people of an identifiable modern race and culture.

@ssargent:
My intention with the blog was to facilitate a discussion, specifically because I thought some other coverage I've seen of the game was too quick to jump to an opinion. I intend the title "blog" to distinguish between this type of questioning and opinion and the formal structure I use for articles.

You raise a good point about the counterexample I chose - Griffin's counterexample, America's Army, would have been more directly parallel. With that example in hand, I have no hesitation saying that America's Army and Special Force 2 are disturbing for similar reasons.

However, I think you mistake the reasons I chose the example of games set in Vietnam, and your arguments highlight why I think it's important to take a look at these games. It doesn't seem true to me that the conflict there is entirely settled, resolved, and easily dismissed. I think the evidence suggests otherwise: people are still playing it out in games, and that is a sign it is not settled. When I chose this example, my thought was that it's easy to dismiss this as entertainment, yet I wouldn't want it to be visible on my shelf while having a Vietnamese friend over to dinner... The knowledge that I would say on one hand that the game is entertainment, and is about a time in the past, balanced by the discomfort I would feel playing the game in front of certain people created a dissonance I thought worth questioning. This is, to me, a more interesting level of the questions raised by Special Force 2. The simple case is to condemn that game and America's Army for their intentions -- to train future soldiers. However, what about those games that are "for entertainment?" When they are set in real historical situations -- recent ones -- perhaps they have a sinister effect of their own, one that is always present, and is merely highlighted by an extreme example, such as Special Force 2. The sinister effect of a game about shooting Vietnamese people, or German soldiers in World War II, is that it removes the humanity of the soldiers on the opposing side, and it encourages an overly simplistic view -- i.e. good vs. evil -- of past conflicts. (Before I fall into another landmine, I should specify that here I mean that, while World War II, for example, involved many evil acts on the part of Germany as a country, I think it is simplistic and incorrect to conclude then that all German soldiers are evil, yet, by their format, some World War II games seem to use that sort of thinking.)

@avanhooijdonk:
I, also, would be quite interested in a non-Western opinion on these matters.