War Games

Games developers do love a good war; in the console world, not in real life. War and playing soldiers has been a staple of video games ever since Steve Russell and his friends produced ‘Spacewar!’ at MIT.

And thus, an entire genre was born...

As games have moved on from those beginnings, so has the sophistication required. Nowadays games incorporating war situations tend to hit the headlines: ‘Medal of Honor’ garnered many column inches in the press during 2010 as details of the controversial multiplayer mode emerged. It turned out you could play as the Taliban, and people were furious. Even then UK Defence Secretary Liam Fox waded in on the furore, claiming, “At the hands of the Taliban, children have lost fathers and wives have lost husbands. It's shocking that someone would think it acceptable to recreate the acts of the Taliban against British soldiers.”

US Army and the Taliban. It's just like playing cops and robbers, only with more politically loaded inferences.
(Source: IGN.com)

Well, he was only partly correct. You couldn’t shoot at UK troops in the game, because ‘Medal of Honor’ did not acknowledge the existence of UK troops in Helmand province. You might have thought this misrepresentation would have upset Fox, too, although he remained oddly quiet on the issue.

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 cause outrage over a mission where you played as a sleeper agent under deep cover in a Russian terrorist group, and were theoretically able to slaughter an entire airport of innocent civilians. The inclusion of this mission alone – a mission which could be skipped by the player at no penalty – was hotly debated in the House of Commons and garnered the franchise its first 18 certificate from the BBFC.

Well, yes; you can gun down the innocent civilians. But would you?
(Source: firsthour.net)

A game like ‘Spacewars!’ doesn’t result in this level of visceral anger, but the use of controversial war imagery in games is hardly a new one.

A (Brief) History of Violence

The boardgame ‘Escape from Colditz’ was released in the early 1970s. The allied forces are represented as escaping prisoners, and the soldiers preventing their escape are Germans. The main controversy this game caused was due to the Swastikas stamped on the boxes of the first copies; something which was hastily amended for later editions.

The original 'Escape from Colditz' box art is considered offensive material by Ebay. No, really. Someone tried to sell a copy, and it got banned.
(Source: vintagetoysgames.co.uk)

Swastika symbols were the main cause of FPS populariser ‘Wolfenstein 3D’ getting banned in Germany, due to the fact that depicting such iconography is an offense in the country. 

Time to kick Nazis in the face! While shirtless!
(Source: howlongtobeat.com)

Not that the game was shy about its subject matter; you play as Allied spy BJ Blazkowicz, who has to escape a Nazi prison in the form of Wolfenstein Castle. He kills guards and attack dogs in a shower of blood, he comes up against a mutant army, and finally has to face Hitler himself. In a robotic suit. With chainguns. Suffice to say, the subject matter is not meant to be taken very seriously. When you set a game in a conflict that was almost fifty years prior to its release, it seems reasonable to allow someone to poke a bit of fun.

No, this isn't a mock-up. Yes, this is a genuine boss.
(Source: onemetal.com)

‘Desert Strike: Return to the Gulf’ was released in 1992, a scant year after the Persian Gulf War; the ramifications of which were still being felt in terms of the effects of Gulf War Syndrome, abuse of POWs in Iraq, numerous economic sanctions and the offensive action taken on Highway 80, to name but a few.

Not a caricature of Saddam Hussain. Not even remotely.

In the part shoot ‘em up, part strategy game ‘Desert Strike’, you took control of a lone US helicopter and completed missions in an unnamed desert area in the Persian Gulf, while collecting fuel and ammo in order to survive. Missions included destroying radar systems, rescuing agents and MIA soldiers, as well as taking out SCUD missiles. The animated sequences displayed a ruthless Middle Easter dictator and prisoners being cruelly treated by their captors.

Not the Persian Gulf War. Not even remotely.

Around the time of its release, a group of US Gulf veterans apparently displayed their disgust at the game by burning multiple copies in a protest.

War is delightful to those who have not experienced it…

The problem with any game set in a war setting is that a game requires protagonists and antagonists. You need a character to play as and someone, or something, to fight against. Games set in real conflicts will always be skewed by the market the game is aimed at. If the Iraqis had made ‘Desert Strike’, the hero would be trying to protect SCUD missiles from being destroyed and avoiding being bulldozed by US tanks. Global conflicts are complicated, messy affairs with many casualties on both sides; a game generally has to be neat, black and white, and give you a side to root for.

A game franchise that has not only tried to avoid this one-sided take, but actively use it as part of the narrative, is the ‘Metal Gear Solid’ series. Every time you kill soldiers or bosses, the games do their utmost to make you feel guilty about it. ‘Metal Gear Solid’ thrives on giving you a glimpse of the person behind the boss kill in their death rattles; even the main antagonist of the game, Liquid Snake, will berate you for killing his comrades and enjoying it – and he will look right down the camera lens at the player as he does so.

Metal Gear Solid: Breaking the fourth wall to make you feel really, really guilty since 1998! Also while shirtless!

Don’t think that ‘Metal Gear Solid’ avoids being tasteless about conflict, however:

Why yes; all those soldiers and civilians suffering from the very real Gulf War Syndrome were actually part of a genetics experiment...

Yes, that’s Gulf War syndrome being used as a plot device. Bear in mind that it had taken years for Gulf War syndrome to be recognised as a medical, rather than purely psychological, illness and that at the time of the remake’s release, veterans’ health versus non-veterans’ health was still being investigated.

With something as contentious as war being used to market fun, it can be very easy for an anti-war statement to be completely overlooked. In 1993, Sensible Software released ‘Cannon Fodder’, a strategic shoot ‘em up where you controlled a platoon of soldiers and sent them on various missions. Players would have to destroy enemy soldiers, tanks, jeeps and buildings to get through the game. All soldiers in the game, be they the players’ squad or the enemy combatants, were easily killed by a single round of machine gun fire. The game had a black-comedy touch, with a theme-tune declaring ‘War has never been so much fun’ and levels with puns such as ‘Super Smashing Namtastic’; hardly the most tasteful of additions.  At the same time, it took great pains to point out the loss of life; after every mission, you got an animated sequence where every single one of your tiny, identikit dead soldiers was awarded a tombstone and given a name. 

On one hand, tombstones and a sense that the lost soldiers were individuals. On the other hand, death is displayed through football analogies.
(Source: play-mag.co.uk)

The player was forced to confront the notion of senseless killing after every single mission; even the manual took great pains to spell it out:

“And on a more serious note: don't try playing this at home, kids, because war is not a game - war, as Cannon Fodder demonstrates in its own quirky little way, is a senseless waste of human resources and lives. We hope that you never have to find out the hard way.”

The idea that you were playing with people’s lives every time you undertook a mission was not lost.

Well, it was lost on the Daily Star, who campaigned for their readers not to purchase the game: 

“Computer games designers compete to glorify war and viciousness. How dare they use the poppy to turn truth on its head. How sickening it is to see it being abused to sell a savage computer game…”

The game, coupled with the choice to use a poppy on the box cover, caused outrage from the British Legion and future Liberal Democrat leader Menzies Campbell. Ironically, this was one of the first games to attempt to be a little sensitive in its portrayal of war in gameplay.

Those little pixel characters you cheerfully sent into enemy fire? They were people, and they died for your amusement. How does that make you feel, player? Huh? Huh?
(Source: abandonia.com)

The issue will always come down to whether games focusing on war are harmless escapist fun, akin to children dressing up and playing as soldiers in their back garden; or a crass and exploitative way to garner interest in a shoot ‘em up. For all the controversy surrounding such games, it seems that any game where you take part in a conflict can simultaneously be used to remind the player just how senseless and cruel war really is. What better way to make a message sink in than have someone experience it in the safe environment of a game?