To those who wish for a more realistic 'game'

Call of Apathy: Violent Young Men and Our Place in War

Quote :

by W.

[Editor’s Note: W is an experienced soldier with combat experience in several corners of the world. They are now working as a PMC and cannot reveal their identity due to the possibility of backlash. As they put it, “The military is a very, very tight-knit community.” This article has been edited for style and clarity; no additions or deletions have been made.

W's opinions are, of course, their own.]

Disclaimer: I am not an academic. I have no education past the age of 16, so my writing may be rough. What I do have is an entire adulthood of military service, which I terminated recently when I decided I wanted more money for doing the same job.

I am a private military contractor, and I have an issue with the depiction of war in videogames — or more specifically, the soldiers in those games.


When I say soldier, let me be clear that I am talking about the Infantryman and the Special Forces operator, as I have next to no knowledge about anything outside of this relatively small percentile of service personnel.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of games featuring the military focus on these frontline combat troops in “realistic” action. And that’s where we get problems.

Imagine a war game where you could only move at a slow walking pace. Imagine Skyrim when your inventory is too full, except you can’t drop any of it. This war game has a prone button like Call of Duty, but your character takes 2-3 seconds to change position. Every time you press it, the animation gets slower because your character becomes more and more tired.

Every mission is set in the same level. They each take 12 hours to complete. Sometimes, absolutely nothing happens. Other times, your lead guy gets blown up and you spend the next hour or so casevac’ing [ed note: casualty evacuating] him while under fire.

Other missions involve you being under fire for the entire patrol. You never see the enemy, just fire at the long grass in front of you as you crawl slowly to some cover. If you get up, you will be cut down within seconds, so this process takes hours. When you reach the enemy compound, if the enemy haven’t run away, dropped their weapons, and are pretending to be farmers, or if you haven’t called in enough ordnance to flatten Mexico, you will kill them in the most horrible way imaginable. That is your incentive.

Only a violent sociopath would play this game.

We do it for real, time and time again, with no other motivation but pay, leave, and the chance to brutalise whomever we deem the “enemy”. This is the lot of the combat soldier.

In military videogames, you tend to get “good guy” characters that are the rough and ready types. The situation may be chaotic, but they crack on with the task in hand to the best of their ability, never let anyone down, and may or may not die in a dramatic fashion. Good, wholesome stuff.

Then there are the Tier 1 types: a more modern iteration that exists thanks to games like Modern Warfare and Medal of Honour. These stone-cold killers speak in clipped monotones, uttering the odd cool one-liner to show that although they are still human, they will never be anything but utterly professional. Both kinds of soldiers end up wrapped up in something bigger than themselves, their missions are always of utmost importance, and every action they take is ultimately justified.

Good enough for entertainment, but should war be sterilised and glorified in this way? Here is the crux of my beef with the military videogame genre:

None of the stereotypes exist. They are put in place by a media and a military that hates the wars we fight but loves the men fighting in them.

Let me give you an example. I was in Iraq in 2007. Over a 3-month period, we saw some of the bloodiest fighting since the invasion, losing more than ten men and killing hundreds of insurgents. A reporter for a very well-known men’s lifestyle magazine visited us to learn about our experiences. About halfway through his escort, an officer from the military media centre tells him that he is not allowed to speak to us anymore. He has to use stories taken from a non-combat unit earlier that day. It turned out that the officer was appalled at the jovial nature of our recollections; the story in which a vehicle commander sawed two men in half with a mounted machinegun because they were on their phones “dicking” us made him balk in particular.

The journalist took some pictures of us because we looked “warry” and lo and behold, 2 months later, the magazine has an article about some medic that helps local civilians accompanied by pictures of infantrymen in full gear.

This is one of countless ways the military carefully shapes the public opinion of the troops. It’s a shameless PR exercise. One of our guys got a Military Cross (a medal for bravery) awarded after he got shot in the bum and continued to fight. His platoon was isolated on a rooftop with no escape for hours, and there was literally nothing else he could do but fight. This does not make him a hero. It makes him a soldier with a sore bum.

Next time you watch a military documentary, ask yourself why only 3 or 4 men are ever interviewed from a unit. The answer?

The rest of them are like me.

There’s a reason the new guy always gets put on point and nobody really cares when he gets blown up, that so many incidents of collateral damage go unreported, that failed missions are spun into something positive like gathering “valuable intel,” and why only roughly 20% of combat troops ever get PTSD – when if you think about it, it should affect everyone that ever sees combat.

It’s because the vast majority of us are straight up sociopaths.

Heroes are a myth. Every incident I can recall in war that created a hero was either an accident or ended up with said hero in a body bag.

Which makes the “hero” myth a fight of luck versus stupidity, a roll of the dice.

We all make calculated risks in war. Not one of us would make that risk if we genuinely thought it would get us killed.

I’ll say it again. Heroes in a frontline combat context do not exist.

Here is a real scenario that should be put into a game:

A friend of mine came under fire inside a compound. He followed up the shooter, who disappeared into an escape tunnel. My friend followed standard procedure and threw a grenade into the tunnel entrance before following up. When entering the tunnel, he found only the bodies of a woman and a small child, whom the terrorist had used to cover his escape.

When I spoke about it to my friend years later, he recalled how pissed he was at losing the insurgent, and how bad he felt afterwards about it. He’d had his professional pride tarnished. I asked him if he ever thought about the woman and her kid and he just looked at me blankly.

He didn’t even remember they were there.

This is a serious issue that needs to be addressed in videogames. How would you feel if you accidentally killed an innocent child in a game? If the words “MISSION FAILED” appeared, but then disappeared after a few seconds, leaving you to continue as normal with no repercussions. Any normal person would feel guilty, but that’s my point. Combat troops are not normal people.

War is the most horrific, sickening thing mankind can inflict upon itself, fought by and large by uneducated maniacs that have no other place in the world. Videogames have the attention of the youth and can educate as well as entertain. The real horrors need to be made very public to keep the next generation from turning out like us.

My friends and I are not represented anywhere in mass media. People need to realise that their wars are not fought by the guy on the news that lost a leg and loves his flag — he was the FNG [ed: fucking new guy] that got blown up because he was incompetent, who left the fight before it turned him into one of us.

The world needs to be made aware of my kind: the silent majority of fighters, those that do not care about politics, religion, ethics, or anything else other than war for war’s sake.

We are not our forefathers. We were not conscripted. We know the dangers. We are not naïve and we are very real.

But I’m sure everyone would rather watch Captain Price stab another faceless goon in the neck whilst chasing the big bad all over the world again.

One last thought: My psychologist estimated that roughly 80% of infantrymen have an undiagnosed violent personality disorder. These aren’t hard stats, but’s it’s interesting when compared to the 20% that suffer from PTSD.

I am perfectly sane, but as the psychiatrist said to me before referring me to a psychologist:

“You’re probably just a complete bastard.”

A true assessment.

http://www.mediumdifficulty.com/2012/03/01/call-of-apathy-violent-young-men-and-our-place-in-war/

While reading this Knightrider popped into my head, the reason for this is he is always complaining that video games are not realistic enough.

You want a war simulator? Go sign up for the military.

Hurray for games that aren't too realistic!
Oh and what he said matches what I have been told from ppl who have been in the army in my family. He makes a good point that all of those games are stereotypical super bad asses that are always doing the cool jobs. To me it's kind of like giving the finger to the people who deserve a game more then they do. Like even though the new medal of honor isn't realistic, it still pays a respect to the actual people who if I am not mistaken the game was dedicated to.

wtf lol

NoobSlayer213 wrote:

wtf lol

Did you read it all?

i think a game needs to be made thats realistice to show ppl what wars like.. Nic articile wasp glade you shared it with the clan.
Thanks

and the winner is.... PR:Arma2


P:S
I'm working on joining the police force.

Well. We don't want to show you what war looks like, because it's so horrific. Instead we just make it sort of like a movie and take out all of the "real shit" that goes on. Yes, maybe we should start putting "real shit" inside games, but if you think about it, who in their right mind, would want to blow up a kid or just a civilian. Whether it's intentionally there or it's just randomly coded. I for one, would not like to have a game like that. Yet we have to balanced arguments.

MrSquables wrote:

who in their right mind, would want to blow up a kid or just a civilian. Whether it's intentionally there or it's just randomly coded. I for one, would not like to have a game like that. Yet we have to balanced arguments.

Grand Theft Auto is a great example of that...

Plus, a lot of games out there I just don't care much for, don't have the time for them and they pretty lame.

Killing random civilians isn't on any level compared to killing kids. In every game, you kill or eliminate (Games for kids don't count). It's not just morally right or sane to kill a kid. This doesn't mean it is right to kill an adult, it's just common.

Its not right to kill any body that doesn't deserve it, GTA is a prime example of morally incorrect and showing people are just killing innocents just for fun type of games existing.

Surprisingly enough tribes in Afghanistan fight each other for land during non-farming seasons for sport. Basically deadly war games not intending to wipe each other out because they actually use radios to warn the others they are about to meet Allah if they don't run. This is a main reason we are having so much trouble in Afghanistan.

whats even better than GTA is Saints Row the third. Way worse

[rant]

Those games you speak of being morally wrong, GTA and Saints Row, just show gang violence and raised the bar for realism that much more, and that is being able to kill who ever the hell you wish. This makes it that much closer to home. That is why you think it is worse than the war games. They are still not half as graphic as tossing a grenade down only to discover you just murderd innocent civilians. Even worse, going down to follow the grenade and seeing the bodies of a woman and children just after a point blank grenade explosion. Those games are on the same level as the rest, just more oriented onto homeland violence so it hits you harder. There really is no true difference between violent games.


This part is to Knight. Even as highly Project Reality is regarded, its a walk in the park compared to what really goes on, and is terribly unrealistic. You also said that you are trying to join the police force, why are you not playing police simulators instead of war simulators?
Arma 2 doesn't even portray it correctly I'm sure, and frankly I'm kind of disgusted you would try to turn this into a competition...

However, and this one is directed towards Ace, if you wish games to be more violent than they already are. Why not move your desire into the real world? Go to Google.com/images and type in WTC Jumpers.***Graphic content*** Browse around until you get to the after math of it. Once its burned into your mind, try to design a game with that degree of gore, and then attempt to publish it. Im sure you will be hard pressed to release it with any sort of ease.


There is a reason why war vets have been quoted time and time again saying things along these lines 'I would never wish upon anyone what i have seen happen to people in war'. And yet we have people searching for that kind of gore for entertainment? Thanks but no thank you.


Violent videos games are labeled violent for a reason. Games are rated for a reason as well. All those games would do is desensitize us even further, even faster.

[/rant]

Wasp yes i agree PR Arma COD BF3 and so on. I would love to see a realistic game but they to make them will cost alot. WAR IS NO PANIC! IT IS NOT FUN! it changes a man my friends sisters BF is a ex marine servered 2 tours. HE shoot a man and knew his name.. yeah messed him up

Whoa whoa, never made anything into a competition was just merely pointing out a prime example. Yes there are games out there, but GTA happens to be a widely known game making it a good example towards squables comment. geez

As for realistic games, Project Reality focuses on the teamwork aspect which is the funnest part of the game. I don't care if there's simulated graphics.

Thirdly, I also play a mod for Arma 2 for role playing as police officers. Fourthly, settle down ill play whatever dawn game I find fun just like you play your games and I am entitled to my own opinion towards games, so don't go attacking me.

Why do ppl always forcus on PR when clearly Americas Army puts PR to shame.
AA is way more realistic then PR

Milo343 wrote:

Why do ppl always forcus on PR when clearly Americas Army puts PR to shame.
AA is way more realistic then PR

Because we do not have AA fanatics in our clan.

Knightrider wrote:

and the winner is.... PR:Arma2

That isnt turning it into a competition?

Now, I never once showed any direct anger toward either of you so i am calm, there for not mad and therefore no need to settle down. I was merely showing you the flaws in you guy's posts, that is all. It may have came out angry sounding but, that is just because of it being directed to you and hitting home.

They should come up with a game where you are a student learning proper grammar skills and techniques. It would help a lot of people out there. And to make it realistic make the school in a ghetto neighborhood with all black kids save for one white guy and a white teacher who smokes weed after school and on her breaks.

I'd like to start by commenting on how well written that was, for somebody that has only been educated to the age of 16. I have nothing but the utmost respect for the men and women of our armed forces. Having never served, I find it very hard for me to say anything other than thank you to them. Still, although I've never served, doesn't mean that I've never fired a rifle. I know very well what a high caliber round can do to a soft target. I don't kid myself by thinking that war is anything short of war. It's people killing people and whoever is the victor writes the history books.

I watch movies about war, ancient wars to modern wars. I've seen many movies about WWII and the attempted genocide of the Jewish people. The one thing that sticks with me after watching movies like that is how amazing it is, the things that people are capable of doing in order to stay alive. I think that a person that goes to war has to become something that he is not, in order that he may return to some semblance of a normal life afterwards. For how can someone go to war, and do things that soldiers do in a war, as themselves, and ever be sane again.

The story about this guy's buddy throwing the grenade in the tunnel after the insurgent, didn't really upset me. Well, don't get me wrong, it was unfortunate, but I place the blame on the insurgent that chose to use his own countrymen as a shield. The man was obviously a coward, and when he dies, it will probably be from a gunshot wound in the back he received while running away. It's been my experience in life so far that God seems to have a bit of a twisted sense of humor when it comes to karma, so possibly the coward will be used as a shield by one of his commanding officers. (we can only hope)

For the author to use a blanket description of psychopath to describe soldiers, in my opinion is wrong. Although I would agree that for someone to willingly enlist during a war, there must be something not quite right with them. Gob bless them, but God save them. Video games are as the name implies, games. We aren't playing war simulators, we're playing games. I'm going to say that for the most part, the people playing these games are aware of that and that none of them would ever be foolish enough to entertain the absurd notion that these games come even remotely close to what going into battle is like. I sure don't.

Lastly I would like to just say, that there is a difference between someone that enlists and serves for their country, and somebody that goes merc. Not everybody that goes to war develops a taste for it. I would venture a guess that the ones that do, usually don't live very long.

God bless our men and women that serve in our armed forces, and thank you.

Knightrider wrote:

...ill play whatever dawn game I find fun..

You kick so much ass!!! Knightrider is my hero!

The article was edited for clarity afterwards.

I also play which ever game i find fun at that moment however, I dont complain about how unrealistic it is and then go back to a poor attempt at a simulated war game (PR).

You know how much minecraft would suck if it were realistic? Your hands would be destroyed from punching trees.

Lol

Trognar wrote:

They should come up with a game where you are a student learning proper grammar skills and techniques. It would help a lot of people out there. And to make it realistic make the school in a ghetto neighborhood with all black kids save for one white guy and a white teacher who smokes weed after school and on her breaks.

A. Trognar, if you're going to make fun of the fact that people are using bad grammar, the least you can do is use good grammar in your own remark. (It's not good grammar to start a sentence with an, "and")

B. The first picture in the starting post was from Call of Duty World at War (ftw!) which was a great game, which is why I mention it.

C. Realistic is nice, but who would want to run around a map for 12 hours never finding a fight? Developers and players both would agree that this would be no fun. It's simply not a black or white situation. There is a grey area in between where a game can have realistic sounds, vehicles, tactics, etc. and still not have to...say..die and not respawn because that would be "realistic".

D. In my opinion, not 80% of people in the military are sociopaths, there are many different reasons people join the military, and not just because they want to kill people.