They’re at it again (they being the media), in what has become a tradition ever since the video game was created, comes yet another controversy about them. This time the “Damien” has been identified as “Modern Warfare 2”, a game I recently purchased and am playing. Anyone who’s following the series, saw that the last version contained quite a bit of controversial material. Modern Warfare 2 is an extension of the story from the first. In the first we see a plot beginning with the protagonists’ (Americans/UK) assassination of an agent in a Middle Eastern country, to a nuclear bomb going off in another ME country, and then the plot thickens to add in the Russians which brings it full circle.

I won’t give away the entire plot of this one, I just want to discuss some of what the BBC is crying about.

The authors said they did not wish to make games less violent, instead, they wrote: “[We] call upon game producers to consequently and creatively incorporate rules of international humanitarian law and human rights into their games.”
John Walker, one of the writers on the Rock, Paper, Shotgun games blog, said: “Games really are treated in a peculiar way.”
He doubted that anyone would campaign for books to follow humanitarian laws or for James Bond to be denounced for machine gunning his way through a super villain’s underground complex.
He said the authors did not understand that gamers can distinguish between fantasy and reality.
Said Mr Walker: “For all those who mowed down citizens in Modern Warfare 2’s controversial airport level, I have the sneaking suspicion that not a great deal of them think this is lawful, nor appropriate, behaviour.”

On this, I agree. I think that these people who criticize are far too attached to political ideology, and disregard the idea that the game settings, and the virtual world are artistic depictions themselves. Take for example Modern warfare 2, and a level I have already passed.

It’s compelling imagery, but that’s where it ends for me. The game developers spared us the idea that this person is tortured, but certainly implied it. So what? Are we all so stupid as to believe that playing a game in virtual reality allows us, or can influence us to do the same in actual reality? The only point that the critics mention which is worthy of debate in my opinion, is the idea that this is done in VR, which means decisions are made. However, these are not really decisions, these are goals to be met to get to the next level. Big difference. If this were a case of morality (if that were truly the mechanics of this game) I would agree, the person should be compelled not to participate, but they aren’t. In addition, much has been said about the atrocity of war, specifically in the art world. Europe embraces quite a bit of it in their museums. Take for example Picasso, and Goya. Here. See also, here.

Certainly, i would agree that these are paintings, not virtual worlds where you can interact with and make decisions. However, the point of these paintings are to depict war in it’s most disgusting light, not some patriotic picture of George Washington valiantly leading his troops to victory. In essence, one might speculate that this is the ugly reality of war. Not maybe the truth of it, but the possibility. An artistic interpretation, if you will.

The idea that you can interact with it, doesn’t change much to me. When I was a young fossil, we had books (some might remember these) which could allow you to determine the outcome based on your decision making. In the absence of high tech visuals, they were the predecessor to the First Person Shooter. You would read, get to a point, and would need to decide your fate. It could easily have said “Akhmed is uncooperative to your investigation. If you would like to apply a car battery to his balls, and waterboard him, please turn to page 135. If you understand that this is in violation of the Geneva Conventions, and would like to arrest your counterparts for suggesting to do so, please turn to page 137.”

These games aren’t that much different. The outcome is a foregone conclusion (there were a few “sandbox” games I played that would allow complete freedom), because it’s been realized that there needs to be a closed scenario in order to get anywhere. Modern Warfare doesn’t raise flags, doesn’t invoke patriotism, and doesn’t really endorse a point of view. It simply places you into one. One which you can either play, or not play. The choice is yours.

With all of this said:

• Is this too much? Has this become a virtual world of sociopathic behavior we’re imbuing onto the next generation?
• How much of this is art? Is any of this art?
• How much merit should we give entertainment and art in socio-political commentary?
• Can people distinguish between atrocity in real life, and atrocity in the virtual world?
• Is the virtual world escapism, or is it really a precursor for the actual intentions of people?

The discourse rules apply. I’ve got some very pointed opinions about art, and its role in society. If you all can take an objective look at where art now exists in our society, it’s almost been completely removed from the idea of a painting or gallery. Many people (like me) have sought refuge in commercial art, of which the entertainment industry, retail industry, and fashion industries have usurped. Meaning, what you see now in these industries, compared to the paintings of yore, are completely parallel. We’re all doing this work to make money, some more prominent than others, but all of us have tried to advance our views with the medium we’ve been given. We care only so much about our provider as our next meal. Many artists are completely, artistically, morally, and politically driven.

Just thought I would add that.