The US Military & Gaming

When I think of gaming, one of the first things that pops into my head is fighting, and violence. Unlike what "U.S. Military Recruits Children: 'Americans Army' Video Games Violates International Laws" by Michael B. Reagan says how the Army makes the games seem to be. The games that the Army uses show "when hit, bullet wounds resemble puffs of red smoke, and players can take up to four hits before being killed." This would make the player less aware, or afraid to get hit by a bullet. "History of Army gaming" by Carrie McLeroy on the other hand sees these games as "an important tool used by the Military to assist in training, analysis and mission readiness." The games have changed a whole lot since when they were first made, and this really has changed the ways that people see the Army. They are now helping to see that Army is more than just fighting and killing people, they show the not so obvious task of the solders "teamwork, coordination and decision-making training." Another article "Military Training Is Just a Game" goes more so with the ideas of Reagan. This article points out that in the Army's video game, "the enemy is defeated, but no blood is spilled, no bullet casings spent." How can they really expect these players to get the real feeling of the Army, if they wont see what they will be seeing if they join? "Wii All You Can Be? Why the Military Needs the Gaming Industry" by Glenn Derene says "the gaming industry is such a huge market." This is one reason why the Army is spending so much money on coming up with these video games, just to get more people to become interested and end up joining. The Army wants to keep up with all the newer things and if making these video games is one of their ways, then so be it. "Atomic Games' Tamte Defends Six Days' Relevance" by Leigh Alexander informs the readers about a video game that was recently put out, and how some people found it to be very controversial. The game was set up "for the world to experience the true stories of the people who fought in one of the world's largest urban battles of the past half-century" says Peter Tamte.


Overall, I think that the Army should have more realistic games, and not try to cover up how war really is. Sure they might be trying to get out other important things you need in war like cooperation, teamwork, and all that, but they also need to add in defense. Not just a defense that will allow a person to live when they are shot up to four times, but a defense of how to get away from being shot, and showing how it would really look if a bad thing were to happen to you. If Atomic Games had a game that was just to teach people about the ways of war that is going on today, then I think that is great. They will be learning about what is really happening in the world, all while they are having fun playing a video game. Video games are way different than what really meets the eye. Sometimes when I am playing some kind of math video game, and I'm doing really good sometimes I think "wow I should be a math teacher!" But could I really be a math teacher just because I am good at playing a game were you have to find cards that add up to eleven? I do not think so. There is so much more that goes into being a teacher than just being able to the math, you have to be able to show and explain it. This has to go along with how after playing the Army video game some people might be tricked into thinking that the Army is the right pick for them. These games give a false face to war and how being in the Army is. It really isn't just a game.