Nov 10 2010
Video games and defense- Response
After going through and reading all of the readings for the week and pulling from topics we discussed in class, I honestly did not realize how much the gaming industry has touched our generation and the military. In the movie digital nation that we watched in class today, they discussed how digital technology has been a huge cultural change for the MIlitary and the defense division. The technology in the military is quite advanced and for good reason, it needs to be. However, it is interesting that the defense division needs to be technologically advanced for the main reason of keeping up with other countries. Is the technology we use because we really need it or is it just because we must keep up with the technology of other countries so we are not considered weak or inferior. Especially with the case of video simulation is it really needed if the military can be trained in the field or through actual field exercises.
1. It was interesting to read about the early emergence of video gaming from its use by military and defense operations. My question is: Could video game simulation help with military tactics or does it just portray a false reality that soldiers prepare themselves for if the game does not effectively portray a particular environment?
In my opinion, I think video game simulation in training our military personal may be good for imagery but not for actual field training. These simulations portray an environment the soldiers will be in but training using video controllers and not real guns is only hindering an individual from getting real experience with a gun. I am not saying the military only uses video game simulation because that is obviously not true but is it really necessary to have these simulations if they end up only being a game for the soldiers and not an effective means of portraying a particular environment? I guess that depends on the soldier.
2. The authors state that the goal for these military video simulations is perfectly simulated human interaction and the current result is a fairly narrow and reductive representation of human behavior, therefore, should the video games include many different types of interfaces to engage the user better? Or is simplicity the best when trying to portray a certain type of environment where content retention is more important?
One thing I am unsure of and did not get a concrete answer from the reading is that video game simulation seems to be interactive but are they interactive through only one interface medium? Are the users able to touch the screen, use a controller to control actions, allow for options in the simulations or does it only allow the soldier to explore what they are told to explore? I think if the military is going to use video simulation so religiously then the users should be allowed to choose there path through it because most of the time in combat situations, individual decision making is going to be imperative, not leadership orders.
3. Do many of these military simulation games walk a thin line when it comes to media ethics or does that really matter when trying to prepare soldiers for the worse to come?
I think in the case of video simulation for the military, media ethics is brought to a whole new level because they are preparing for the worst and should be shown the worst. Although, some of the things our soldiers see in war can not be simulated in video because emotional responses are much different. Video can help with mental preparation but it will never replace the emotional situations they will face. Media ethics is an issue in the gaming industry but does it matter, people are going to do what they want to do, regardless of restriction.