American or Taliban? In Multiplayer It Doesn’t Matter

Reading Michael Thomsen’s “Games With The Power to Offend” brought me right back to the whole Medal of Honor controversy I wrote about last week.  Now I have no plans to buy MoH but not because of the controversy.  As I wrote before, the idea of playing a Taliban fighter doesn’t really mean anything to me but I’ve been thinking about it for the last week so I thought I would add to my last post.

In BFBC2 Rush mode it's the US vs. the Russians in attack and defend.

Let me use MoH developer EA’s current game as an example.  In Battlefield Bad Company 2 you can either play as an American or a Russian soldier in the multi-player suite.  Of course the relationship between Russia and the United States is better now than it was during the Cold War, but the fact is as a Russian soldier, I have plenty of opportunities to kill Americans with knives, bullets, tank rounds, and mortar fire. However when I play as a Russian, I don’t see Americans in front of me.  Nor do I see Russian soldiers when I am on the American side.  Why is that?  Because both sides are exactly the same.  The only differences are the uniforms and the weapons you enter the match with.  I know that on some MP maps US forces have access to Apache attach helicopters while on others the Russians can fly the Hind attack chopper.  Americans use this type of assault rifle while the Russians use that type.  I remember that the two sides have tanks with slightly different capabilities. However the soldiers on both sides are interchangeable.

I’m betting that when MoH releases in October, gamers will find the same MP concepts as in Battlefield and other games in the genre.  As far as the game play and objectives of the match go, there is no difference between the two sides.  Yes, the weapons are different but that will not give one side an advantage over the other.  Balance is important in MP.

This notion of identifying with the different MP factions borders on the absurd.  If the tactics of one side differed from the other than perhaps it would make more sense to vilify EA for including the Taliban. Maybe if part of the game were to hurry up and construct an improvised explosive device (IED) and bury it in the road all the while reminding each other why we hate Americans, then perhaps gamers could experience why that role is abhorrent.  But gamers don’t have time for such things in MP. Everyone is in a rush to get to the killing.  In the real world, we know there are differences in ideology, tactics, and objectives when comparing US forces to Taliban fighters, but those differences don’t make it into MP. In MP gamers are not forced to listen to Taliban propaganda, ideology or religious doctrine. There is no talk of American oppression or the righteousness of their cause.  We don’t see what happens to American prisoners nor do we witness how IEDs are constructed and planted.  Images of Taliban fighters celebrating the deaths of Americans never becomes game content.  And so we don’t see those differences highlighted in the game.  How can we attach any type of meaning, and therefore hatred to those “Taliban” in the game? As a gamer striving to kill all the enemy players or grab territory, I have a hard time doing anything else.

The Taliban in MoH - are they just virtual fighters or hated enemies?

In order for me to have that type of hatred, I need to see that these characters are real Taliban.  I need to be able to demonize them for their heinous acts and their anti-American fervor.  On the other side, I need to be reminded that the Americans fight to protect their homes and families from terrorists and those who harbor them. Without that I feel nothing when I gun down an “American” or a “Taliban” except that, for a moment, I was better than the other guy.  I need that connection so that when I kill the Taliban I know that now there is one less person who can attack America.  Without that I feel no shame when the match starts and I see that for the next five minutes I will play as Taliban. This is part of what’s missing from all the news coverage of the Medal of Honor controversy, but it certainly need to be part of the conversation.

When Virtual Wars Become Too Real

Atomic Games' military horror shooter died a quick but painful death.

I’ve been a fan of military shooters for a long time.  It might have something to do with my six years of service in the U.S. Army.  Any decent shooter in that genre will catch my eye.  Ghost Recon, Rainbow Six, Call of Duty, and Battlefield Bad Company quickly come to mind but there are others as well.  There was a time I looked forward to playing Atomic Games’ Six Days in Fallujah. For those who are not familiar with this game, it died soon after reports of its controversial content surfaced on the Web. It seems that a game about the Iraq War was not possible while the war still raged. Outrage against the game quickly muffled all news about the potentially positive aspects of the game and that was that. (I really like the way Daniel Floyd covers this controversy as part of his youtube series on games.)

It seems that games about current wars are a no-no.

A year later I began reading about EA’s revival of its franchise Medal of Honor.  EA put the series on a path to the modern era. They would leave World War II behind and join Call of Duty and Battlefield Bad Company in the modern age.  However Medal of Honor‘s setting is the current US war in Afghanistan.

Here we go again, I thought.

Imagine my surprise when I read nothing about an uproar over EA’s shooter. Spring turned to summer and still nothing.  I thought MoH might actually make it to release with little controversy.  Guess I should have known better.  It seems the controversy is finally here.

However if you study the history of video games, you will see that writers and developers often look to outside media for influence and ideas.  Current events are a rich source of game content.  That’s why there are so many military shooters on the market.  While it is true that the enemies in those games are generic terrorists or dictators in fictional countries, the inspiration is today’s war on terror.  And that is the problem.  While World War II and Vietnam make for great war games, using a current conflict is out-of-bounds.  The pain is too fresh and the scars too raw. In ten years, perhaps, Afghanistan will be fertile ground for gaming, but in 2010 any attempt to use this setting must create controversy.

I believe the root of this issue goes back to what Floyd says in his video: games are judged by the name of the medium. When you say “game” you might as well say “enjoyment” and “fun” too.  To many non-gamers, the very act of picking up a controller means you will be having fun and picking up your virtual rifle and heading off to “Afghanistan” should not be fun.  They might not understand that there are times a gaming session is not all that much fun.  When I play NCAA Football 11 I enjoy it unless I lose by a lot of points.  I might say it was no fun at all. But I still played a game.  Last night while playing Dragon Age Origins I had to decide whether or not I should kill a person (I did finally).  That really wasn’t fun either.  However there are times I have so much fun I can’t help but shout and laugh and proclaim to the world how I am the greatest player who ever lived.

So I have to agree with Floyd when he says that video games, like comic books before them, suffer from the stigma attached to the name.  He reminds us how comics evolved into graphic novels and he muses that games might also find respect with a name change.  I don’t know about that, but what I do know is this: when I game I look for experiences and not just fun. The first time I saw Platoon I left the theater in awe.  What a profound experience.  Would I call it fun? No. If I use those same measurements, the single player campaign of Medal of Honor could very well be about sharing the horror and intensity of simulated combat.  Probably not too much fun.

Playing as the Taliban means killing American soldiers

On the other hand, the multiplayer portion should be fun and that brings us right back to the problem.  If you have played multi-player matches in EA’s Battlefield Bad Company 2 then you know how intense and overwhelming the experience can be.  It is fun?  Sometimes.  Most times it was a challenge and took all my concentration simply to achieve the goals of the match.  I didn’t see the enemies as Russian or American, they were simply targets to remove or merely players on the other side of the Internet to compete against. In that simulated world, thousands of “Americans” died. Where was the outcry?  In Modern Warfare 2 thousands of “US Rangers” fall everyday.  They are just as “real” as the American Tier One soldiers in Medal of Honor. But because the enemy is the Taliban, the game becomes more “real” than those other titles.  Is MoH bad because you can take the role of a real US enemy?  Or is it bad because you can “kill” American soldiers?

This is certainly a topic worth exploring, but in order to have a meaningful dialogue, we have to move past the narrow point-of-view of FOX News and others and investigate the full range of views on this topic.  We must address what it means to explore war this way as opposed to methods other media such as film, television, and books use.  Games bring their own perspective to the experience and that experience should be acknowledged for what it is: a different way to share the human condition.

The Message of The Normal Noble in Dragon Age Origins

Dragon Age Origins is my new favorite game.

Disclaimer: There are some minor spoilers for Dragon Age Origins in this blog.  You’ve been warned.

Disclaimer 2: I am still working on my first play through of DOA but I want to write down my thoughts as I play through. It may turn out I am wrong on a number of issues and if so I will blog about it at a later date.

I just bought a copy of Bioware’s Dragon Age Origins last week.  After playing for four days I am hooked.  Whereas before I was not sure if I would even like it, now I find myself thinking about it even when I’m not playing.  That’s when you know you’ve found a game that rocks.

I’ve enjoyed it so much it took me two days to realize something was wrong.

Let me go back to the beginning. For those who don’t know Dragon Age, like so many other role-playing games, lets you create your character and select a background before you plunge into the adventure.  I chose to be a human noble female. Now I don’t play RPGs that much but whenever I do, I always create a black woman.  That way, I can bring two under-represented groups at the same time.  However for some reason, I could not create a black woman this time.  All I could do was give her a bit of tan that just didn’t look right.  After trying four or five times I gave up, made her the best I could, and started the game.

Character creation for nobles is limited in Dragon Age Origins

When my character walked into the castle (she was a noble after all) I realized why my choices were so limited: my family was white.  Mentally I kicked myself for being so silly.  Noble.  Castle.  Very European.  Of course they were white.  That makes perfect historical sense.  And so with only a twinge of disappointment, I launched into the grand epic.

After two days of killing darkspawns and demons it finally dawned on me that something wasn’t right.  It turns out my character was not the problem.  The family was.  Well not exactly. Or maybe that’s really two problems.  The first problem was that I could not create the character I wanted to create because historical accuracy (in a fantasy game mind you) dictated otherwise.

The second problem is that I accepted the fact that a noble human family in a fantasy game should be white due to the setting.  Dragon Age is a fantasy, right?  If I can be a part of a world that contains the most honorable heroes, the Gray Wardens, and the most vile villains then why is it so hard to have a noble family of color?  In my days of traveling the land, I have seen NPCs of color, though none of significance yet.  I assume I will eventually run into one who will present me with a side quest or something.  So if that is the case that there are free NPCs of color in the land then why can they not be a part of the noble class?

Bioware went to great lengths to provide different backgrounds for players to select: human, elves, dwarves and so on. Moreover, they have carefully crafted a spectacular game with a rich and diverse mythology.  I am still amazed by what I have seen so far.  So then how hard would it have been for them to add code to change the family to fit the character?  If I wanted to create an Asian male, then the game should automatically create a family to match.

These were the choices I had in Knights of the Old Republic

The more complex and insidious issue here is that it took me a few days to realize something was wrong.  You see when I realized the European setting dictated a European family, I was okay with that.  It seemed very normal to me. Therein lies the problem.  Because it was normal, I did not question it, though I should have.  I probably should have been outraged that being white and noble was hardwired into the game as well as my consciousness.  But I was having such a great time playing the game that all thoughts of accepting (or rejecting) that particular messages soon fell by the wayside.  And yet this is a fantasy game.  In my fantasy games, I want my heroes to be people who look like me.  I did it that way in Knights of the Old Republic and I did it that way in Mass Effect. Bioware has spoiled me. What’s the difference between those two games and Dragon Age?  In Knights and ME the hero came from either a tragic or mysterious background.  We only got to hear about their origins.  In Dragon Age, I got to experience my character’s home and family.  There was a sense of community.  I had access to my parents, servants, and pets.  All very normal, even it all took place in a huge castle.  The hidden message here: in the better or preferred background, you can’t be black or Asian.  Those races are relegated to the abnormal. This other background is only acceptable for that mysterious person, that tragic survivor, the violent war hero, or the fallen dark lord.

What we are really taking about is re-imagining characters in-game and we should all be used to it by now.  Last summer the entire concept of Star Trek changed with the new movie.  Battlestar Galactica re-imagined the whole series including some of the main characters such as Starbuck (from Dirk Benedict to Katee Sackhoff) and Boomer (from Herb Jefferson Jr. to Grace Park).  In Marvel Comics’ Nick Fury went from white (comics) to black (movies). And who can forget Brandy as Cinderella? I would like the option to either embrace or reject those messages of what is normal in my games.

Now you might think that after all this I would stop playing Dragon Age Origins.  Not so.  I’ve had too much fun to stop anytime soon.  And it may turn out that when I choose another origin the result will be better.  I have yet to try being an elf or a dwarf.  But even if I run into the same problem, I believe this tale will be every bit as satisfying as Bioware’s other games. However fantasy above all else should be about escaping from the norm.  Whenever writers and developers only bring those norms into the game, they limit what the player can do to enrich his/her experience by not allowing that player’s notion of identity to be included.