Video Game Survey.

To back up certain points In my essay, I conducted a small survey to get some insight on player's opinions towards the warfare game genre. I work in a video game store, so It seemed an ideal place to question my customers as the majority would all be be gamers and would have have heard of the warfare genre.

 Here is my Survey:

I was surprised at my end results and how many customers answers were based around how a game MUST look good and have good graphics, nothing about the narrative or plot etc. Also when questioning if they thought the representation of warfare was good or bad, NO ONE said it was bad! that is was good or okay because it was not real and it would not have affected them. Also some answers were not really clear, some just preferred the genre because they just though it was 'good' based on pre-successors. This informed me that it wasn't always the entire genre, but just franchises players buy into. Like a label of fashion, you would only by it because you know from others that it is good. Such as the Battlefield or Call of Duty franchise, whether it has a good narrative or not, players know of the success of these games and would buy into them regardless of what they would ential. This could also show how the gaming developers take advantage of their audience, and use their 'label' as a selling point by making it look nicer etc. In my opinion, the majority of warfare games released now have very short or poor plots that have an overly aggressive and ridiculous scenarios. Players often say they like how realistic these games are, but really they could never potentionally happen! it almost makes warfare in reality appear WORSE than what it is. Even players contradict themselves and say that these games are NOT realistic enough to believe it would affect them and how warfare was represented within them. Is it realistic or not?! turns out the graphics are but the story doesn't need to be! I think this is evident in most of our present warfare games.

Call of Duty as a Warfare based Game.

I want to briefly look at the way Call of Duty uses game play to attract players to the genre. I want to show how the achievement system works, so I can see how players are distracted from the reality of war that this game is representing.

Call of Duty's online multi player consists of a variety of game modes and challenges that reward players if they reach certain targets. Each challenge or goal rewards the player with something called 'experience'. Experience is collected through achieving these goals and is used to unlock better weapons, different camouflages and reach high levels. The highest rank in the game is a 10th Prestige (the best). There are ten prestige's goals to meet, but it requires the player to level up 70 times to reach one. For example, when I reach level 70 for the first time, I would prestige once. If i wanted to go to second Prestige, I would have to level up another 70 times. Being 10th prestige is the ultimate reward within the online game, but it is hard to do as the higher level you are, the harder it is to rank up. So, completing certain challenges can give you better experience points which would initially make you rank up faster.

Challenges such as:

. Certain amount of Knife kills

. Head shots

. Airstrikes called

. Helicopters used

. Perks used (Perks are boosts that help the player in a game, such as higher jumping or stronger ammunition)

. Kills to death ratio, the more kills you do without dying is called a 'Kill streak'. Kill streaks reward players in game with packages that can give them the upper hand. Such as predator missiles, nukes, choppers, extra ammunition,  UAV, Stealth bombers etc.

Each challenge gives you a certain amount of experience depending on the difficulty, but when achieved will reward the player accordingly. However, what all of this shows is the immoral use of violence within the game. How a certain amount of head shots or airstrikes used would be reward you and make the player feel 'skillful'. Although I admit, the game play of Call of Duty is exciting and immerse, when sitting back and thinking about the morality of the game, I almost feel disappointed in myself for enjoying it. Getting excited over trying to have a good kill to death ratio, or trying to unlock a 'nuke' package in the game seems almost silly to me now. It is immoral violence that portrays warfare WORSE that it actually is. Making it fun to want to find the best way of killing each other, using these challenges to excite the player, definitely feels like the game is desensitizing them by making them forget about the realism the game had initial portrayed.

It is evident how competitive the Call of Duty multi player is, to the point that he Internet is swarming with countless videos of how people have reach certain goals quicker than others. How players have executed 'awesome' kills by using skillful tactics etc. It is very RARE that any player talks about the story behind the game, because it's almost like it doesn't even matter! It is primarily about who is better than who in this genre.

Here are two videos representing how player's glorify their kills/deaths for recognition:

This second video demonstrates '100 ways to die in Call of Duty" It shows all the different ways you can be killed whilst playing the game. However, it is represented in a comical way for the addition of humorous music and the ways in which you 'die' in your act of own stupidity. This video proves how players do not care for the unnecessary violence, they just find it funny:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3GgxMwndDA&feature=relmfu

Aside from the multi player, the single player campaign also includes incredibly graphic violence to reach to it's gamers. One specific level that ideally stood out more than others was 'No Russian', I level which before you can play informs the player of caution at scenes within this part of the game may offend or disturb you. Although this is good to have caution, it still leaves the player's curiosity to find out what is is that this level is about. Especially if you have purchased the game anyway, I would find it rare that any player WOULD actually skip it. Anyway, here a video link to the levels play through:

This is such a graphically disturbing level in all honesty. Although you do not HAVE to kill any civilians, it is implied frequently by pier pressure from not only other gamers but also from your AI team mates in the sequence. If you don't execute them, you get warnings etc. However, at the end of the level you are shot dead, it is almost like this level had no relevance, just a sort of playable cut scene. You definitely get a sense that you're doing something wrong, but I can't help feel how much it replicates issues in reality with terrorists, is it okay that game developers can just put this sort of stuff in their games? yes with warning, but it still seems highly unnecessary.

Bibliography:

. Youtube

Essay Title: The Representation of Warfare Culture within Video Game (notes).

Warfare is a inevitable part of human life that will always occur due to the same reasons. Disputes usually based around disagreements within culture, religion, finances and political issues between different nations/governments etc. As we know, War is a subject that will never be taken lightly and will always be looked at in a negative way for the devastation it causes across the globe. It brings greed, deceit and worse...death to loved ones, family members and friends. The effects of war are shown frequently on the news today and bring with it deep emotions of sadness, trauma and fear.

However, within the 'shooter' genre of our video games, this reality is replicated as a form of entertainment or 'fun'.  Although I enjoy playing shooters myself, it has only crossed my mind from my research, the immoral substances that are used to build narratives within these games. Warfare based games replicate the disputes in the physical world as building blocks for a plot, then work into them to add realism, such as good graphics, audio and game play. What is the morality of these games? is it okay to portray warfare as an 'entertaining' thing? Although these warfare based games include those realistic narratives, I believe it is not the subject that is focused on when playing one of these games, as a shooter player myself. These elements may appear realistic to the player, but in fact we register no opposing threat as it is and always will be a virtual experience to us. These events would never happen to us whilst playing this game, so it doesn't really matter how graphic the war narrative can be, as nothing is really going to harm you. Within shooter games, life has a no 'real' value, if you die you can come back to life or 're-spawn' as many times as you want so you can continue playing. As we know in reality, if you were to die, you would not come back to life, ever. So does this experience desensitize the player's feelings towards the horror of death? to the point that they don't mind killing one another or dying?.

Game play, graphics and audio take over the narrative plot and consume a player into a virtual world that seems realistic enough to keep them immersed to the point that they look beyond the warfare plot concept. As with all games, there are goals and rewards that are reached by playing according to the rules of the system. It is okay for a player to enjoy warfare based games as they have no real fear of the affects of warfare in reality. Killing gives you points, which add up to a good statistics which are compared across other opponents in the game, Players want to have the best stats and want to beat other opponents records to be more 'skilled' or the BEST at the game. It's at this point that warfare in games takes away the devastation of war, even though it represents the elements of true warfare. Life has no value, it is a point system. Even ways you kill other players and the ratio you kill and die is taken into account on the player's stats board, the better stats, the better rewards and the more you are recognized as a skillful player. This hides the conceptual plot behind the game, what real war is like. 

I found an example of what I mean in an article from a website. A young player said:

'I can’t imagine how horrible it would be to be in a tank watching all these poor, innocent people being blown up. You actually fail the mission if you kill innocent people. If I did go to war, I’d blow my brains out, but the games seem fine to me.' (learningwithtoby 2011)* This shows how the player finds it okay to play war games because it isn't real, it isn't really explosions, real deaths or even real events. However, these all are representations from real warfare. So if you understand the terror that is real war, why do you enjoy playing it so much virtually? is it because there is no real sense of fear, just to be the best? is it okay to use warfare culture to get the attention of players, using violence to make players feel achieved?  

Also with the inclusion of good graphics, audio and game play, players are more interested in those elements than the narrative plot. If a game looks realistic it appeals more to them, even if it isn't. It is then that players start to develop interests that they can handle real war, they buy replica guns and military outfits to mimick themselves in the game. Even the military train their soldiers with warfare based games to improve hand and eye co-ordination, but is this also a good thing? making a solider who could potentially go to war, to experience a media that represents their life as meaningless? that dying is a good thing? etc.

It seems to me that these games are used entirely for the game play experience. As with these shooters, the main focus is set on the multi player aspects and less of what the story entails. In all honesty it feels that warfare games these days use the multi player as the most important part of the game, and focus less on the single player experiences with the story. This also shows that they use the warfare genre just to attract the audience who enjoy that type of genre. They forget what devastation they portray and the trauma that is the reality of war, they abuse it to take advantage of players. They overload the story campaign with ridiculous yet brutal assets that they believe would attract a player into wanting to buy the game, because it seems 'cooler'. More explosions = better game play? no! it's just making it look better so the player is attracted to it, even though it portrays such unnecessary violence and destruction!

*learningtwithtoby [reply] (2011) Why war games are okay[internet blog]. Available from:<http://learningwithtoby.com/2011/01/26/why-war-games-are-okay/> [Accessed 10 May 2011].

Games in Culture: Games as Cultural Systems

An Introduction to Game Studies: Games as Culture

Chapter 2 Game Culture: Meaning in Games

Page 13. Games as Cultural Systems

In this chapter it was interesting to see how the study of traditional video game culture has differed compared to contemporary examinations. The newer studies focus less on the traditional representation of culture within games, such as historical, military, educational sciences or ethnography and pay attention to the actual 'meaning' of culture. How a game makes players react through graphics, audio or game play and not so much the plot.

Although finding the meaning of culture is quite complex, it was interesting to see some examples from other aspects of life in order to get a greater perspective of the mean. Language itself is a common known form of culture, it distinguishes between different nations and also highlights the lifestyles within it. Like hieroglyphics used ancient folklore imagery as symbols for their language, it's part of their specific culture. However, although language enables us to converse with one another, it is not necessary to use in order to communicate.

It is not the only use of interaction that has 'meaning'. Other than language, we use other ways to communicate, with our bodies or emotions, sounds or imagery. Without words we can engage with small children and animals simply by interacting with them, whether in simple games or playing behaviors.
 

Language is represented as culture within game playing today. However, interestingly it is still not needed to express the 'meaning' of culture within the game itself. With a similar principle, although a game can have a set story and a set amount of dialogue, none of it is needed in order for the player to 'feel' the game. Instead, elements such as audio, graphics and game play all contribute to the 'meaning' of cultural language within a game. Sound can make you react in fear, or triumph. Graphics can make you feel claustrophobic or free. It is these fundamental elements that create the player's own vision of the media, without needing to even know the story. Just by playing through the other forms of interaction, we can establish a meaning to the game.

However, I was intrigued to discover this...'An immersed player can be engaged with the game for hours on end, and yet is is hard to tell precisely what the actual meaning of the game is for this player' (Mayra 2008 p14) This highlights that a gamer finds it hard to verbalize or describe exactly what the game play culturally entails with the plot. Never the less, in the previous examples above, verbal or written language is not needed to express the 'meaning' with a video game. A player can react with unusual facial expressions, random bodily movements or even involuntary sounds simply based around their reactions to the events happening within the game. A game doesn't need to explain to you what it is that is happening, with the use of audio, graphics and game play, a player can figure out the meaning of a game even if they do not know the story. This is known as the 'Silent significance' with gamers in particular. The internal experience from a game can be overwhelming and vast, yet can be hard to describe to an external observer. Being immersed within a game can make you react in all sorts of ways depending on the action, but it can be evidently hard to transfer how you felt during the game play. This is because of a connection between the player and the game that is somewhat subconscious. All aspects such as characters, environments, music and general atmosphere are taken on board subconsciously as not 'major' roles in the game play, but they in fact create the biggest reaction within the player's emotions.

Having subconscious reactions occur in a variety of ways, from the movies to fashion before we even know what the 'concept' entails. For example, we would analyze a fashion by subconsciously putting a dress sense into a category, without little means to the thought behind it. It is a reaction to which we don't have much control over, like our consciousness. That is why it is so hard to explain our feelings towards game play experiences, as a subconscious takes over.

Facial expression of a young gamer whilst playing 'Call of Duty 4'.

Bibliography:

. Google Images: http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2008/11/18/magazine/20081123-games_2.html

Mayra, Frans. (2008) An Introduction to Game Studies, Games in Culture. In: Game Culture: Meaning In Games: Games as cultural systems. THE MIT PRESS, pp.13-21.