So we read Chomsky's Propaganda Model earlier in the semester for insight into limiting forces on journalistic verification and transparency in mainstream news media. Before you discount this post as mental masturbation or the ramblings of another upper-middle class anaracho-syndicalist (which I'm not), I'd like to state clearly that I'm not going to suggest that there's any sort of collusion between the video game industry and the government to prevent the production of video games dealing with touchy foreign policy issues (or any government issue for that matter); however, I'd like to dispel the common association of video games with harmless "escapism."
Coming from a background in film, the archetypal examples of escapism
that pop into my mind are the Depression-era big budget musicals and
screwball comedies. If you've never seen a Busby Berkeley musical, then
you owe it to yourself to see some of these prototypical examples of
"eye candy" that have informed the visual flair of most action movies,
Broadway musicals, and even video games that we see today.
Warner Brothers was the only Hollywood studio to maintain independence during the Depression, and they did so by appealing to everyone's desire to visually escape from the drudgery of daily life at the time. This is essentially the same method used by the Catholic Church during the Dark Ages, when cathedrals were the only place one could go to see a visual simulation of what Heaven might look like to a populace riddled with poverty. Screwball comedy poked fun at the foibles of the rich to show poor people that money didn't necessarily make one happy.
The point I'm getting at here is that escapism works, quite literally, as an escape from real world ills. Video games don't necessarily do this. If we sought an escape from violence and terrorism, then we wouldn't have so many video games on the market focusing on just these two issues. Rather, many video games seek to provide catharsis for the mental ills that plague us all. We don't see games about Iraq, but there are plenty of games that attempt to deal with the same "forces of evil" that fearmongering pundits fill our heads with through metaphor or displacement.
Even Mario wages [a] battle against the totalitarian, (literally) draconian Bowser. Americans don't like seeing freedom, safety, and capitalism toyed with (and the Japanese are happy to produce games that reflect our values exactly). WWII games used to be the most common FPSs besides scifi-themed shooters, but recently we've seen a market influx of "modern" shooters - Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare being the highest-quality example. If game company marketing departments advise against addressing current political situations directly in war shooters because of fiscal considerations ("we don't want to alienate half of all potential buyers"), then we have a self-enforced limiting influence similar to the mainstream news propaganda model on our hands. I'm not saying that the cause is the same (government control), but the effects certainly are (avoiding sensitive subjects through a given medium).
I do think there is something unsettling about the kind of shift from WWII shooters we've seen towards games positing Russian and Mexican terrorists as the enemy. One would do well to remember how quickly the American propaganda machine shifted from vilifying Germany to declaring a cold war on "Uncle Joe" after Berlin's surrender. When you listen to any right-wing radio personality talk about his "solution" to our present sticky international relations situation, he reminds us that propaganda was essential toward the goal of hardening American hearts toward its enemies during and after WWII. CoD4 is particularly troubling because it posits Russian terrorists as having a controlling influence on Middle Eastern militants (this is actually a complete reversal of the truth of our having financed Bin Laden and others in their struggle against the USSR).
Currently we're on the brink of seeing yet another cold war against Russia (our politicians use the war on terror to obscure this fact), and the "looming threat" of cheap foreign labor (particularly Mexican, on our own soil) troubles a majority of working class Americans. Both CoD4 and Battlefield: Bad Company deal with Russian enemies, while Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter I & II deal with terrorists on the US/Mexico border. All four of these games are both well-made and wildly popular; however, we must ask the question as to what it's doing to our subconscious thoughts about foreign policy when we play games where we have to battle Russians and Mexicans instead of extremist Muslim terrorists. Are we not priming the minds of teenaged players toward future conflicts with these countries under the guise of avoiding touchy "real" military engagements?
[ADDED: my upcoming posts for the winter break]
1. Clarification and Correction Follow-Up to this post
2. Indie Games, News Games, and Documentary Film
3. Possible Reasons to Ignore Journalistic Values with Games
4. Richard Bartle's Idea for Breaking News Games
5. Undecided News Game Review
Warner Brothers was the only Hollywood studio to maintain independence during the Depression, and they did so by appealing to everyone's desire to visually escape from the drudgery of daily life at the time. This is essentially the same method used by the Catholic Church during the Dark Ages, when cathedrals were the only place one could go to see a visual simulation of what Heaven might look like to a populace riddled with poverty. Screwball comedy poked fun at the foibles of the rich to show poor people that money didn't necessarily make one happy.
The point I'm getting at here is that escapism works, quite literally, as an escape from real world ills. Video games don't necessarily do this. If we sought an escape from violence and terrorism, then we wouldn't have so many video games on the market focusing on just these two issues. Rather, many video games seek to provide catharsis for the mental ills that plague us all. We don't see games about Iraq, but there are plenty of games that attempt to deal with the same "forces of evil" that fearmongering pundits fill our heads with through metaphor or displacement.
Even Mario wages [a] battle against the totalitarian, (literally) draconian Bowser. Americans don't like seeing freedom, safety, and capitalism toyed with (and the Japanese are happy to produce games that reflect our values exactly). WWII games used to be the most common FPSs besides scifi-themed shooters, but recently we've seen a market influx of "modern" shooters - Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare being the highest-quality example. If game company marketing departments advise against addressing current political situations directly in war shooters because of fiscal considerations ("we don't want to alienate half of all potential buyers"), then we have a self-enforced limiting influence similar to the mainstream news propaganda model on our hands. I'm not saying that the cause is the same (government control), but the effects certainly are (avoiding sensitive subjects through a given medium).
I do think there is something unsettling about the kind of shift from WWII shooters we've seen towards games positing Russian and Mexican terrorists as the enemy. One would do well to remember how quickly the American propaganda machine shifted from vilifying Germany to declaring a cold war on "Uncle Joe" after Berlin's surrender. When you listen to any right-wing radio personality talk about his "solution" to our present sticky international relations situation, he reminds us that propaganda was essential toward the goal of hardening American hearts toward its enemies during and after WWII. CoD4 is particularly troubling because it posits Russian terrorists as having a controlling influence on Middle Eastern militants (this is actually a complete reversal of the truth of our having financed Bin Laden and others in their struggle against the USSR).
Currently we're on the brink of seeing yet another cold war against Russia (our politicians use the war on terror to obscure this fact), and the "looming threat" of cheap foreign labor (particularly Mexican, on our own soil) troubles a majority of working class Americans. Both CoD4 and Battlefield: Bad Company deal with Russian enemies, while Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter I & II deal with terrorists on the US/Mexico border. All four of these games are both well-made and wildly popular; however, we must ask the question as to what it's doing to our subconscious thoughts about foreign policy when we play games where we have to battle Russians and Mexicans instead of extremist Muslim terrorists. Are we not priming the minds of teenaged players toward future conflicts with these countries under the guise of avoiding touchy "real" military engagements?
[ADDED: my upcoming posts for the winter break]
1. Clarification and Correction Follow-Up to this post
2. Indie Games, News Games, and Documentary Film
3. Possible Reasons to Ignore Journalistic Values with Games
4. Richard Bartle's Idea for Breaking News Games
5. Undecided News Game Review
You really seemed to veer away from "games aren't escapist" to "games are propaganda".
Your article, good sir, is full of shit. It sounds interesting at the beginning, but that quickly goes down the fucking drain when you bring politics into it, especially since you seem to be one of those conspiracy nutjobs who accuses the government of committing 9/11. So you think just because COD4 had a Russian as the main villain means we're being raised to hate them? You have a lot to fucking learn, which scares me even more, since you actually teach students. I hope to God they don't turn out to be just like you.
Oh, and when I just submitted the blog entry, it says it'll wait from approval from you before being posted? Not only are you a dipshit, you're also a hypocrite! You obviously won't post my last comment, because I'm speaking the fucking truth about you and your pathetic views on the world! That's also why there haven't been any comments posted on here, isn't it? At least at Kotaku we can speak our minds about what a fucking imbecile you are.
GO FUCK YOURSELF.
Great article!
There are numerous points in here that I could take issue with, but I'd like to focus in on one passage in particular:
"The point I'm getting at here is that escapism works, quite literally, as an escape from real world ills. Video games don't necessarily do this. If we sought an escape from violence and terrorism, then we wouldn't have so many video games on the market focusing on just these two issues. Rather, many video games seek to provide catharsis for the mental ills that plague us all."
You seem to draw a distinction between escapism and catharsis as they relate to art/media, and it is this distinction that I call into question. Is not the cathartic value of video games that which we use to escape from life's ills?
Despite their similarities to our real-life problems, video games offer one element that real life does not: control. It's this control that provides the catharsis, the therapeutic effect of video games, and what make them an excellent form of escapism because they allow us to escape from our troubles, which are distinctly characterized by our own inability to control them.
I would even argue that, because of the control they offer a player, many video games are even better methods of escapism than the glitzy movies and Broadway plays you reference. What better way to escape than to completely transport your conscious into that of a digital avatar, fighting the ills of modern life in a way only possible by way of video game?
Dear Kotaku readers,
Author of the original article here. First, please don't blame Ian for the quality of my post. He doesn't edit our writings, and he doesn't encourage us to ascribe to his own personal valuations of games as "persuasive" or "boring" or "procedural." The film reference is there simply because I'm transitioning from film studies to game studies at the moment. For some context, this blog you've been given the link to is a research studio attempting to find any and all connection between games and journalism. I wanted to breach the subject of the news media propaganda model because it's something we'd read and had not yet applied. The posts are supposed to be short and sweet, hence the disappointing length and the feeling that I "forced together" escapism and propaganda here (I feel this too on reading it after a few days).
I think there are two major currents of disagreement here: 1) that I'm a snobbish left-winger and 2) that I miss the point of "escapism." I can't really argue with the first criticism. I'm a shameless liberal, and we're not asked to evince political bias from the articles we post on the class blog; however, the nauseating effect that my bias might have had on some readers would no doubt be lessened had I fleshed out all the ideas in the post. If anyone would be interested in seeing me do this, please reply - and I'll develop the work further over the holiday break. I promise that I have plenty of moderate and conservative views that would probably shine through given more writing space.
Second, the issue of escapism. I'd like to point out that the way you describe video games as an escape from the tedium of daily life is simply called "recreation." Escapism has a historical meaning that I attempt to address in my post. I think the problem here is that a gaming website called The Escapist sounds a lot cooler than one called The Recreationist, and so in our popular thinking on video games we've come to conflate escapism and recreation. Escapism literally encourages one to ignore what's happening in the world. Recreation calms us down when we're sick of those same happenings. I don't think video games make us oblivious to the world, and I think this is a good thing. The "propaganda" connection is just my attempt to show one way that games aren't escapism; I don't claim that it's the only way. We also have a few posts on video games and values, which I think some of you may like. Please remember though that we're under pressure to keep these posts short and to relate them to the sometimes disagreeable readings that we've done during the semester (Chomsky, for example).
I see no reason why video games won't be the foremost commercial and fine art form within our generation, and we here at JAG are just here to look for connections between gaming and another medium, news, in order to contribute to a future enriched by ubiquitous gaming (since we've already got ubicomp pretty well down). Thanks for reading, and I'm sorry that I couldn't please everyone (or most people) with the blog post. I've taken your criticisms seriously and will refine my writing and thinking accordingly.
I appreciate your concern LordOfDOP, and I'd like to share with you the disturbing news that I couldn't comment on the Kotaku post because I wasn't an approved commenter. I hope I approved your replies to the article fast enough for your tastes. We don't have a staff here sifting through comments, so sometimes it takes a little while. I hope to address your concerns in a further development of my thoughts. Please read my "Dear Kotaku readers" comment.
Jay,
Thank you for the measured critique. I think this comes down again to conflicting definitions we've all got for escapism and catharsis. For my explication of what I mean by escapism you can read the "Dear Kotaku readers" comment. As far as catharsis goes, I'm referring to Aristotle's Poetics in a quite literal fashion. The catharsis I'm talking about is the one where a piece of art forces one to address a problem directly (emotionally or otherwise), and thus to overcome it (again, emotionally or otherwise). Escape and catharsis are mutually exclusive on my reading of it, but I may be wrong.
On the other hand, your point about the therapeutic value of control is awesome. I agree with you completely, but I think these two issues are distinct.
I agree with you completely. I definitely conflated them in a manner that doesn't look too good when linked from a site like Kotaku. The post serves as an introductory thought space for me to address both issues (games v escapsim, games as propaganda). I'd like to note that I don't say that all video games aren't escapist: "Video games don't *necessarily* do this" is what I wrote. Also, the post is called "Model Propaganda," so it's purpose has kind of been misconstrued by Kotaku. We appreciate the traffic though, thanks for the post. Read the "Dear Kotaku readers" comment for more of my reply to the complaints.
I'm a bit fuzzy on the difference between recreation and escapism, I guess. You say:
"Escapism literally encourages one to ignore what's happening in the world. Recreation calms us down when we're sick of those same happenings."
It depends, I suppose, on what we mean by "what's happening in the world."
For example, I have never committed an act of overt aggression or violence in my adult life (one fistfight in 6th grade, though). So violence, for me, in "the world," has always been only ever real at a distance. Clearly there is violence, both criminal and political, personal and social. Clearly we are often inundated with examples and news of both current and historical violence.
But, what "happens in my world" on a daily basis is nothing like violent. I wake, eat, work at a job that is mostly typing, mousing and talking, come home, have some family time, and sleep. When I play violent games (which I often do) as recreation, is it a way to mentally escape into a situation in which quick, instant action against known enemies is instantly and clearly rewarded? As opposed to RL, in which slow, prolonged action against vague, shifting enemies (poverty? sickness? inefficiency? bad coffee?) is slowly (sometimes) and ambiguously (often) rewarded?
I wanted to mention, in response to one brilliant "logical refutation" of my argument on Kotaku, that Warner Brothers remained financially independent because it's movies sold tickets during the Depression. Every other major studio had to be bought by banks or other corporations. This is the only meaning of independent that I'm using here.
Nowhere do I pass judgment on the entire medium of film or the entire medium of gaming. I say that video games aren't necessarily escapist, and I cite some movies that are escapist. If you'd like to expose some poor logic in those two statements, I'd love to see it.
Andy,
Good point. I am referring to the "real world" as the "world as the news media presents it to us." Clearly the two aren't the same. My mother has a lock on the door leading to the garage, even though the garage door itself is always locked. When I took it upon myself to make video documentation of the street I grew up on, two families scampered around the block after me for about fifteen minutes before confronting me as a "peeping tom." Even though most of us will never suffer from break-ins or peeping tom-ery in our lives, anyone who turns on the news is assaulted by such stories. Likewise, every night we hear about the war on terror and the situation in Iraq (or Mumbai, for the past week).
The fact is that there are wars going on in the world. Unless you don't consume any news media, then you know this. And even if you've never done violence to someone else, you know that such violence exists in the world; however, you make a good point that there's an important distinction between "our real problems" and "the world's real problems." I need to take it into consideration.
I'll bite. It's not that there aren't non-escapist video games, but that the medium is largely escapist for the dedicated gamers. Tetris might be recreation for anyone, but MMOs, RPGs and adventure FPSs begin to simulate reality in way that wholly supports escapism.
This isn't the escapism of the great depression, and nothing can quite be that, so to use the term in a modern context it *has* to be adapted to modern sensibilities. Otherwise you're just saying the 1930s are over and little else.
But more importantly, it goes well beyond recreation. If it weren't for the sense of richness and wonder it's able to deliver, the gaming industry would be as trivial as outsiders imagine it--too trivial to write about. It's *never* been that trivial since Colossal Caves, at the latest.
Finally, who cares if games are cathartic or relevant to global issues? Many of us see catharsis as the primary virtue of the escapist game: the ability to virtualize something we cannot realize. Global issues? The games are inconsequential, and my day job isn't shooting bad-guy-du-jour.
Interesting article. While I may not agree on certain aspects, looks like LordOfDOP got a little carried away.
dark,
Thanks for the bite. I'm going to have to refer you to the reply I made to Jay as to the kind of classical catharsis I'm talking about here. MMOs reconfigure real-world issues in a way that people can relate to and interact with. I'm happy for your if your peak concern is escape from the tedium of your daily life and nothing more. There's a lot of that in the reason I play video games, too; however, there are of course games that even simulate these "boring" problems of life as welI - The Sims or Second Life or There.com - that don't necessarily make a complete escape from daily reality. I think one would be painting with a brush as equally broad as the one I'm being accused of using if one asserts that video games completely ignore the outside world by creating new, fully encapsulated worlds with no bearing on the decisions we make in real life. I accept that confrontation with the physical world and its problems aren't the only way that a game can avoid being trivial. If you're looking for validation that we don't take any aspect of gaming lightly, take a look at the rest of the posts on this site. Most of them, of course, will be dealing with news and journalism and the "real world," because that's the purpose of our research.
I'm struggling to find where you're trying to bite per se, because you simultaneously ask "who cares if games are cathartic" and say "many of us see catharsis as the primary virtue of the escapist game," but I hope I addressed your problems with the piece here. I would like to say that it's not just "the outsiders" who see games as trivial. Many "dedicated gamers," many of the posters on Kotaku included, don't want to accept that their brains might be doing something other than pumping adrenaline and fun out while they're playing games. I don't want to detract from fun, but it's certainly no reason to avoid raising issues about mainstream gaming and its future outside of such considerations.
Finally, I was under the impression that I was adapting the issue of escapism to a modern context by dealing with the war on terror, the fear of indigent labor, and our largely tacit conflicts with Russia. Games are not tackling these issues head on (by rehashing headlines), but some (notably from the FPS genre) are engaging people's inner thoughts and fears to some degree. That's one of the points I tried to make here; from people's responses, I probably failed to do so. Whether or not these games engage us in a propagandistic manner is definitely up for debate; it's entirely possible that I'll see myself as completely playing devil's advocate here. School blogs are great for developing thoughts and learning from one's mistakes, wouldn't you agree?
I think one huge issue for your argument is if people play games for story or not.
Whilst what you have said about Call Of Duty 4 is certainly valid, at the same time the MULTIPLAYER subverts any message of the single player story by allowing you to become the Russian terrorists, and it is the MULTIPLAYER which makes the game popular and still played today, nearly a year after it was made.
For clarification, the "who cares?" comment was directed at the potential opinion that catharsis somehow excludes escapism, and to preface the point of the paragraph.
I think the heart of this relates to the meaning of 'escapism' and I can't think of a way to exclude gaming as a major escapist facility without denying the practice of escapism entirely in the twenty-first century, at least on this continent.
The reason I'm being broad is that you seem to try to make your point by showing that not all gaming is escapist in nature while trying to support the argument that video games should not be associated with escapism, but since you haven't qualified that, the exceptions you mention don't do the work. Consider: Not universally associated? Sure--any notable exception will suffice. Not generally associated? No, for that you need to show that escapism in the medium is the exception.
My argument is that the very games that support the possibility of a noteworthy gaming industry are the ones that support escapism. Perhaps not even most gamers take advantage of that potential (though I don't think this is the case), without that depth and potential the industry would be virtually nonexistent.
I'm really not sure how the propaganda and war angle comes into it, and I think that needs a lot more thought before it should be added to the argument--it was more relevant in the past and maybe you're making a mistake by trying to adapt the concept of escapism to fit todays analogues for yesterdays concerns (instead of finding new reasons.) I don't believe that the reasons people need an escape have stayed the same, since I think we an agree that it's a cultural phenomenon, and our culture has changed.
Thanks for the clarification dark. I'll keep checking in to see if there are any more comments that need approving, but I'm finished replying for the night. It's finals week and I have work to do.
While I don't think this is necessarily an airtight argument for your point, I think I'm leaning toward agreeing with you- for the most part.
This could be the beginning of a great argument.
Hopefully people can stay calm, rational and civilized. Perhaps they could back up their points with references or statistics, not just the word "fuck."
Thanks for your partial support, and for your hopes on this article's future development! Also, if that's your band that you linked as your website... the vocals on that are probably the best I've ever heard from an unsigned band on Myspace. Not exactly one of my preferred genres, but really good stuff there.
You've hit the sore spot of some of the readers. I've been against modern day shooters as well as WW2 ones, because they are either altering history or pure and plain propaganda. Even in most innocent cases it is hidden in there really and in most cases the discourse is stupid but efficiently provoking.
Iraqis became the enemy in many Hollywood movies long before gulf war began at the eighties. There is a connection between american goverment and film industry. It is sad to see that these days there seems to be a connection between your goverment and american/european games industry. It is the flow of the money and the ones with the money can get their hands on the product.
You said japanese games reflect your values exactly, but I have to disagree. Japanese games, even these days goes through drama of atomic holocaust, explosion of capitalism and collide of western and asian culture. Japanese games are different and good examples are the MGS games, which are deep down very pacifistic.
Metal Gear Solid 4 instead of promoting the same "war" like COD / GRAW does, criticizes the economy that drives it and states that unless the capitalism behind the war is stopped, anyone can be - and at some point becomes the enemy.
Some games can be escapism, - I would probably put my money on some good quality JRPG.
Comments have to be approved before they're posted? That's really backwards. That's not how posting on the internet is supposed to work. Check out any other website with a comment box and you'll see what I mean.
One must remember that daily life of people in general isn't all about fear and war and terrorism. Escaping from the drudgery of daily life doesn't involve those kind of things.
The shift of villians in first person shooters is less attributable to mainstream media and more attributable to short attention spans of gamers. Been there, shot that is sentiment I hear every time I hit a game shop. WWII Europe has been played out. WWII Pacific looked horrible rendered 3D, so the hunt was on on to keep FPS fans from flocking back to Halo or Quake. Tom Clancy had a hand in this with Ghost Recon years ago but truthfully, not too many options when you want a modern day shooter.
Oh for Gods sake.
There is a perfect antidote to this kind of paranoid dark-agencies conspiracy minded rubbish.
Turn it on it's head.
1. Suppose EA released a game that DID portray actual scenarios in the current conflict in Iraq?
How quickly you would be bleating the same theory, but with a new spin that our helpless sheep-like citizens were being trained for our evil capitalist war !!!
2. What the fuck do you suggest you put in a movie for an audience who are suffering terible hardship? Pictures of more hardship?
You would make a fortune. How people would flock to see it!
3. If there is a new cold war with Russia looming, it might be something to do with the fact that the Russian state is a multi billion dollar Gangsta Racket run by a modern day absolute ruler, that murders all who dare to challenge it, especially it's own citizens, and threatens the safety of the world with it's decrepit Nuclear arsenal and political brinkmanship.
If our leaders are trying to hide these blatant facts, then they are doing a rotten job.
As I suspect you are doing with your poor students.
I appreciate your article, and do think the subject is worthwhile (if not completely obvious).
The fact is, most war games promote war... (as do many films, though many war films are also anti-war). Whether the hostiles are Mexican or Russian is useful to a point, but the greater issue is war begets war.
However, you probably already know that the audience you're targeting is not going to meet you on a mature level.
You want to have a mature discussion with immature people. So all we can do is face it, many game players are just that, and they'll use anything to justify their interest in such games; as already evidenced by some of the replies.
I think the solution here is to address not the players, but the developers and publishers. Put priority on the source of the fud, draw out the debate at conferences with the actual creators and responsibles, ask for justification, just not with the recipients (players).
Simon... Great article and something that has been on the back of mind for some time now. It's nice to see someone with some knowledge of the theoretical aspect of game and film media flesh out the details. I think the connection between the propaganda that exists in today's mass media (LordofDOP you should drop the controller and pick up a book every now and then. Government use of mass media as an instrument of propaganda is well documented!!) and the themes of popular games is very tangible. The game manufacturers and movie studios retain plausible deniability concerning the facts they use because the content they create is in the realm of fiction. They don't have to represent the facts correctly. John Q. Public doesn't read anymore and therefore gets most of his information from visual media which he uncritically absorbs. This isn't even mentioning the studied effect prolonged exposure to visual stimuli has on the sub-conscious. It seems convenient that the entertainment industry- much like the rest of coroporate society- doesn't have to be bothered by something as burdensome as the truth.
Interesting point on propaganda pushing via war type games. I too have pondered that point when playing games like Call of Duty 4. An important point to consider about COD4 is the fact that previous COD's were based on past events recorded in the World Wars, while COD4 is a fictional creation based on modern warfare. I wonder how many people acknowledge the switch from fairly factual based to fiction?
u got everything right, except the fact that i am muslim and i am not a terrorist. but ur programmed to think that i am. thanks to ur media.
What a load of self-indulgent crap.
A. Video games does not equal Movies.
Your whole premise pretty much breaks down from the start. There is no logical reason to think there should be any parallels between video games and movies. In one you simply watch, the other you particpate. The same kinds of stories and plots wouldn't work in one medium that would work in the other.
If there was a video game that took on a "sensitive subject", but all you did was press the X button every 5 minutes to prompt it to continue exploring said subject, the game would suck. No one would play it.
Right there, the difference between a game and other forms of "media" are obviously so glaring that trying to draw comparisons is simply foolish.
I was going to continue on with B and C, etc... but what is the difference.
Your post is a prime example of why sometimes a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Thanks for the support, but I think you find the subject obvious because you see it completely differently than I do. See, I don't think war video games beget war. I think they allow us to confront our fears and anxieties and to overcome them (the catharsis I mention). The point on propaganda is simply to state that we must ask how the specific games I'm writing about might be working on a player subconsciously. The violent games = violent lives soapbox isn't where I'm standing here.
Toby,
You and DukeOfPwnz from Kotaku are the only people using curse words on this educational forum. The comedy value is subsiding.
And you can rest easy knowing that I'm not a teacher, and I don't plan on ever being a teacher. I'm one of Ian's students, not the teacher himself. Please read a bit more carefully before posting here again.
I perceive games as simultaneously escapist and engaged with RL historicity, particularly when it comes to RPGs but the same could be applied to much of the medium. I wrote a blog entry awhile ago, which I think shares some touchpoints with your analysis, if you care to read it (shameless plug):
http://paulbauman.blogspot.com/2008/06/chasing-d-history-of-rpgs.html
Thanks for the reading, Paul. I definitely see where our ideas converge. The biggest lesson I've gotten out of all of this is that I didn't know so many gamers were so attached to the notion of escape. I thought they'd be relieved to know that it wasn't necessary to see gaming as selfish and isolationist. This was presumptuous on my part. As it turns out, I probably need to amend my own notions of escapism in historical and contemporary contexts.
On a less hysterical note.
It was early here in Europe, perhaps I could have put that better. It's an interesting subject, and you are right to examine it. What seems absurd is to suggest some kind of Government plot to influence the masses. The games companies have one overriding concern and that is to sell games. What else?
Are you suggesting that there is some kind of illicit contact between the companies and the government? Is it financial aid? Does the money come from some secret CIA or NSA fund? And what are the instructions given to the companies? Make a game so that the average American is comfortable with the idea of fighting a war against the Mexicans and the Russians?
I don't think they need spend another dime.
It's a job that doesn't need doing.
I have read from reliable sources that a shockingly high percentage of US college students cannot accurately identify the participants in World War II, let alone how it was fought or who won. That is why it is no longer featured as much. The companies are simply adapting the scenarios to something that they hope the audience might have seen on a news broadcast in the last couple of months. Otherwise the audience has forgotten about it.
If you want to worry about something, worry about that.
It is depressing to see the same old war crap being peddled, but this is just boring old lack of imagination and courage on the part of the creatives and executives involved.
You mention Super Mario, I do not play games, but even I know all about Mario. It was a global phenomenon because it was original and great fun to play. War is just a tired fallback when such inspiration is lacking.
Perhaps somebody should make a really positive game, where the players all team up, in their millions, and set about changing the world, starting by electing a brilliant new face to the Presidency, with new ideas who....
Wait a minute, this sounds familiar...
You've definitely hit on something there. I think this complexity of the concept of "escapism" is a rather contemporary one; you wouldn't have seen this type of discussion over that simple term a couple of decades ago, especially in relation to videogames. It's a sign that the medium is maturing and also that people are possibly just less entranced by the purely audio-visual aspects of escapist media. We seem to always be processing historical/cultural connections now (maybe not analytically, but for the large part, consciously), even when we're deeply immersed in the medium.
That is my band. And thank you.
If you don't mind posting it for everyone else, here it is:
www.myspace.com/thebellyofthewhale
Toby,
Thank you for restating and re-articulating your problems with the post. You, and a few other Kotaku readers, definitely bring up two points that we sometimes forget when doing video games studies: 1) a lot of people didn't pay attention in high (or any) school and 2) a lot of people don't pay attention to the stories in video games. As for the political stuff, I'd like to point to two parts of the article that show that you have no reason to worry:
In the first paragraph I write: "I'd like to state clearly that I'm not going to suggest that there's any sort of collusion between the video game industry and the government to prevent the production of video games dealing with touchy foreign policy issues..." This should allay any fears you have that I'm spinning a conspiracy or claiming any connection between any government agency and the video game industry. Then I say at the end of the fifth paragraph that "I'm not saying that the cause is the same (government control), but the effects certainly are (avoiding sensitive subjects through a given medium)." This is where I show that the news media propaganda model does not work here; however, I think that the controlling influence that marketing departments have on which games get made does produce a similar effect to the results of the propaganda model.
The funny thing about how you describe our recent election as "a really positive game" is that there's actually a game where you *kind of* can do that kind of stuff. Check out Ian's post on ERepublik!
Very interesting read, I agree with most of it. Dugg!
Mort: I hadn't even thought to check our Digg comment feed. Thanks for the digg; the comments for this post on Digg.com are really helpful! And I'm glad some Diggers took the initiative to 1) read my article thoroughly 2) disagree with my treatment of parts that I obviously didn't spend enough time on 3) open themselves up to a different understanding of the word escapism and 4) look up the Chomsky Propaganda Model on Wikipedia.
Earlier in the semester we did some research into making sites like Digg more useful for academic goals, but I'm really happy with the stuff Diggers have posted for the article.
This is fun
So we read Chomsky's Propaganda Model earlier in the semester for ( fresh ammunition to throw at the barn-door sized targets of mainstream media and games companies )
Before you discount this post as mental masturbation or the ramblings of another upper-middle class anaracho-syndicalist ( forget it, I'll never admit to that ) , I'd like to state clearly that I'm not going to suggest that there's any sort of collusion between the video game industry and the government to prevent the production of video games dealing with touchy foreign policy issues ; however, I'd like to ( suggest that there is something sinister going on involving video games and American social politics )
Coming from a background in ( neo-marxist evaluation of american cinema ) , the archetypal examples of escapism that pop into my mind are the Depression-era big budget musicals and screwball comedies. If you've never seen a Busby Berkeley musical, then you owe it to yourself to see some of these prototypical examples of ( entertaining light-hearted cinema ) that have informed the visual flair of most action movies, Broadway musicals, and even video games that we see today.
Warner Brothers was the only Hollywood studio to maintain independence during the Depression, and they did so by appealing to everyone's desire to visually escape from the drudgery of daily life at the time. This is essentially ( absolutely nothing to do with spiritual imagery ) methods used by the Catholic Church during the Dark Ages, when cathedrals were the only place one could go to see a visual simulation of what Heaven might look like to a populace riddled with poverty. Screwball comedy poked fun at the foibles of the rich ( because the troubles of rich people are funny, whereas the troubles of poor people are not )
The point I'm getting at here is that escapism works, quite literally, as an escape from real world ills. Video games don't necessarily do this. If we sought an escape from violence and terrorism, then we wouldn't have so many video games on the market focusing on just these two issues. Rather, many video games seek to provide ( first person experience of exciting and dangerous scenarios ). We don't see games about Iraq, but there are plenty of games that attempt to deal with the same "forces of evil" that ( actually exist in the modern world )
I can't be bothered to do the rest.
Thank you for the private post-script Toby. I understand your frustration at my political views, because they're clearly divergent from yours. We will have to, as everyone does in these situations, agree to disagree there. I have also taken your mad-lib seriously, and I will try to cut down on the snootiness in the future.
The only protest I have is this: I'm a post-structuralist film theorist, not a neo-Marxist :) Good health to you.
Dude, I detected no snootiness, just an undisclosed and predetermined political stance.
No offense intended. Good luck ;)
I envy your optimism trying to engage Kotaku readers in an intelligent discussion. Nice post.
An excellent effort at tackling a serious and almost central part of mainstream video games. Wish I had the time to actually join the conversation proper. Cheers!
Whoa. Hold on here. I think we just found the last person in the world to believe our government DIDN'T have a hand in 9/11.
Give yourself a prize, LordofDOP, you're the reason these idiots are still in power.
Also, this was an intelligent and well written article. I love Noam Chomsky, and as a student of film myself, I agree with the underlying issues that you are highlighting here.
Wait what? You argue that video games aren't escapist because there's so many violent ones, and movies are escapist because musicals exist?
Are you purposely ignoring that just about every summer blockbuster is filled with explosions and destruction and often death? And what about documentaries? How are they escapist?
Are you purposely ignoring the vast legion of video games are completely abstract with little to no connection to the real world? Not all video games are about war and guns. Tetris doesn't make you think about global terrorism or the economic recession. It's completely abstract. Escapist, yes? It makes you put the real world aside. That was your definition in your comment up there right?
Singe: please refer to the comments where I restate that I am only talking about escapism in one genre of movies in one historical period (Depression-era musicals), and using it as an example.
I argue that video games aren't -necessarily- escapist (this is not a catch-all), because many of them force us to confront our anxieties and help us to overcome them - not because "there's so many violent ones."
If a video game's setting, or characters, or mechanics, or objects are completely divorced from the real world, there's still the fact that you're consuming them and understanding them through the filter of what you've experienced and learned in the real world. I see no serious problem to my argument here. Janet Murray has a slightly unpopular view of one way we might make Tetris into a narrative (I'm paraphrasing badly): it simulates the experience of having all these tasks to do in one's daily life, and the search to organize them and eventually move on from them (completing lines to clear them). I don't necessarily agree with making a narrative out of abstract games, but to say that Tetris has absolutely nothing to do with any thought process you might have in the real world is a bit strong.
As to your final question, I'm going to refine the exact kind of escapism I'm talking about in a later post. Thanks for posting.
I didn't read all the posts, so sorry if someone covered this... but my definition of escapism differs in the fact that one would be trying to escape from DAILY real world woes.
If you look globally, yes I agree one of the problems you might want to escape from are terrorism. The flaw with this is I don't live in the (entire) world I live in a very limited area of it. The woes I face are sitting in a cubicle every day, paying bills, and keeping myself intellectually stimulated. Looking at escapism in that light makes fighting simulated terrorists an appealing world to distract myself from those things. Doing that fighting as a modern could-almost-exist-today soldier heightens my immersion in the fictional world, thus assisting with the escape.
So in a manner of speaking, placing games in almost-real worlds actually helps the escapism (in my opinion).