Thread: War games and pacifism?

I consider myself a pacifist but I've also been a gamer for a long time as well. I enjoy playing first person shooters such as Crysis, Battlefield, and Combat Arms. Lately, I've reached a moral dilemma to whether it is acceptable for a pacifist to enjoy war games (anything from first person shooters to full on simulations of military missions/Milsim).

I take a strong stance against war and violence in real life and I have a firm understanding of what is real and what is not. There is a boundary between the real world and the virtual world and I have no intention to blur that boundary. I've had discussions about this topic with other fellow pacifists and they have given me various views on it. One of them has said that it is unfortunate that society encourages this type of behaviour while another said that he could never hurt anyone in real life (and neither could I) but he has no objection to doing it in a game.

Why is war so fun? Personally, I play first person shooters not for the killing. With games like Battlefield, I enjoy the whole aspect of working as a team towards and objective whether it'd be capturing and holding a flag or taking out an enemy's MCOM station. I see it more like playing capture the flag as oppposed to just running around and shooting everyone. Sure, there is some pretty intense violence in Battlefield, but I'd say it's part of it. It isn't there just for the sake of it (like in some other games) and it isn't too graphic either. I play non-violent games too such as Portal, The Sims, and Rollercoaster Tycoon (although that one might be arguable), but sometimes I do feel the need for fast-paced action.

I am not a gamer, so I can't comment on that aspect, but I consider myself a non-violent person, not necessarily a pacifist. I find war interesting though, and read books on warfare, ancient and modern, quite frequently. I think partly it is the fact that there are no runners up, it's win or lose, no-one comes second. That concentrates the mind and produces development. Development of technology can be important, but only if it is exploited by a similar development in tactics and followed through. I don't just mean the military follow through, a Nelson victory as opposed to a Lord Howe victory, but the political and social follow through. Lets face it the French and Americans won in the long run, most people think liberty, equality and brotherhood are more important than the rights of Englishmen to seek power, privilege, and position, which was what Nelson and his captains were fighting for.

Well, do you play rape-sim games as well? Would it bother you to take enjoyment from one? It's just a puzzle game at heart, deciding where the best place to ambush a girl is, and the right roofie-to-drink mix.

To pull it back to a rule of thumb: if you think something is morally abhorrent, but take satisfaction in reenacting it online, you might have a problem. I submit any elements you find enjoyable in a war game: competition, cooperation, engaging interactively with a story, are available in other game formats.

Originally Posted by Capulet

Well, do you play rape-sim games as well? Would it bother you to take enjoyment from one? It's just a puzzle game at heart, deciding where the best place to ambush a girl is, and the right roofie-to-drink mix.

LMAO! Awesome.

To pull it back to a rule of thumb: if you think something is morally abhorrent, but take satisfaction in reenacting it online, you might have a problem. I submit any elements you find enjoyable in a war game: competition, cooperation, engaging interactively with a story, are available in other game formats.

Well... I would disagree to an extent. I mean... kids run around playing with toy guns and adults of both sexes usually have some fake rape fantasies.

Maybe there's some level of truth in both what you say and what Revekka feels as a pacifist that enjoys war games. I dunno.

Olly makes some good points too.

Dunno. I hate shooters but I have a serial killer in the Sims game I play from time to time. I don't see myself as a pacifist though I think war is stupid except in terms of culling the herd. Fast-paced action means NHL2012.
I don't see a problem with enjoying wargames and being a pacifist. Could be cathartic.

Excellent argument, however, in our society, killing your enemy is often acceptable, but ra*ing is not. The premise is, that they are engaged in such bad things (such as trying to kill you) that they need to be stopped, even with deadly force. There's also the aspect of hitting a target with something from a distance, whether it's with a rubberband, a snowball, or, in the case of a sim/game, something more destructive. For some reason it's just fun. And, it's even more fun if they're trying to hit you back. Just imagine the satisfaction the first caveman must have felt when he was able to drive off some predator/rival with a well placed rock.

That is one thing about playing first person shooters that seems so enjoyable. Trying to complete and objective while trying to stay alive at the same time. Knowing that whatever it is I'm shooting at can shoot back at me at any given moment certainly adds the excitement value.

Well, to take the question into a slightly different direction:

We can accept that war is not a desirable state, and enjoyment in violence against others generally doesn't get you in good with society.

Considering how technology and the gaming-experience continue to evolve, do we think the simulation will ever reach a point of realness where we deem it to be counter to the proper development of a successfully integrated member of society?

No. I think it'll go in completely the other direction and the realness of the sim experience will become the real thing. The successfully integrated member of society will have circuitry. It's the future whether we like it or not. And increasing overpopulation and food-competition will only breed more violence in a world that is increasingly oriented toward senseless violence as a way of life and features desensitization on military scale for large segments of the populations of even the most civilized nations.
Violent gaming isn't the cause of that--It just reflects those interests. In my experience, the type of person who devotes hours of their life to playing, say, Black Ops, doesn't have a lot of interpersonal empathy in the first place. There are always exceptions. But that personality type is an uncomfortably large segment of the population.

There was a rather sick game (I believe it was banned in my country, so it'll stay nameless) where you'd piss on people, shoot them and the like. To me it was stupid amusement, and I never visualised the idea of doing it on real people (unlike certain foul Hollywood wannabes). Trouble is however, not everybody can cleanly see the boundaries between reality & not reality.
These boundaries are blurred in many people; and honestly I'm not sure the boundary is completely absolute even in well minded people. The thing with laws is that it can't make a distinction between those with sound minds and those whose minds may be just that touch fuzzy. And maybe when we judge whether something is acceptable, maybe we need to consider it along those lines as well.

Btw : I'm not a pacifist, so I have no general moral objection to the basic concept of war games (except that many are propaganda hate material these days).

Originally Posted by moderan

In my experience, the type of person who devotes hours of their life to playing, say, Black Ops, doesn't have a lot of interpersonal empathy in the first place. There are always exceptions.

Most modern games are just as bad. You can no-longer get a (for instance) car racing game and have a bit of fun. They're total killjoys with 2 hour setup & fine tuning time. They demand obsession.

Something along the lines of what moderan was talking about (personality types)... here's your brain on [not drugs] violent video games.

(I don't know how much weight I actually put in this study)

Playing violent video games leads to brain changes, researchers find - JSOnline

Photo: http://media.jsonline.com/images/264...deobrain_1.jpg

Do you think anyone would play this?

Red team soldier: I'm supposed to shoot you, but instead I want to talk to your leader.
Blue team soldier: Ok everybody don't shoot him, he just wants to talk to our leader.
Red team soldier: Can you come have a meeting with our leader tommorow? We don't want to fight anymore but rather settle this peacefully.
(at the meeting)
Red team leader: (hands a peace treaty after a long time of negotiation)
Blue team leader: (signs treaty)

Game announcer: T-t-t-treaty signed! Mission accomplished.
(+100 points for doing it so fast)

Originally Posted by Revekka

Do you think anyone would play this?

Red team soldier: I'm supposed to shoot you, but instead I want to talk to your leader.
Blue team soldier: Ok everybody don't shoot him, he just wants to talk to our leader.
Red team soldier: Can you come have a meeting with our leader tommorow? We don't want to fight anymore but rather settle this peacefully.
(at the meeting)
Red team leader: (hands a peace treaty after a long time of negotiation)
Blue team leader: (signs treaty)

Game announcer: T-t-t-treaty signed! Mission accomplished.
(+100 points for doing it so fast)

You could probably keep the guns and action by replacing the bullets with rolled up peace treaties. Whenever you pacify someone they fall backwards into a bed of flowers and start smoking pot

But no, in seriousness, I think people are reading too much into 'violent' games. It is fun to be an ass to bits of code and pixels. I used to love playing Grand Theft Auto, and took it upon myself to kill anyone who I spotted riding motor-bikes. Was having far too much fun being evil to actually complete the missions.

There's only a problem when game characters become real, in which case, people simply wouldn't buy the game anyway unless there were a peaceful path to take to success in the game. In Fable 3, for example, it pretty much forces you to be nice simply because most people would feel guilty by breaking promises and taking the evil route.

Lastly, though I'm not all that fussed about fps games, (they get repetitive for me), there's nothing wrong about them either. In campaign mode, you fight characters who are generally completely and utterly dehumanised. Often, they even use aliens of sorts to fufill the role of enemy, eg. Halo and Gears of War. They essentially take a leaf out of Lord of the Rings, which has an entire race dedicated to being cannon fodder that no one cares about. Is it wrong to read Lord of the Rings and enjoy it? (Well, actually, yes, but that's more due to personal oppinion of Tolkien's writing style... I found it tedious). And in multiplayer, you may be fighting real people, but they simply respawn straight back to life afterwards, feel no pain from getting shot, will have shot you if given the chance, and will get bored if you just stand there and offer no challenge.

In short, there's only a problem if you find yourself able and willing to kill characters that have become more than bits of code and pixels. Otherwise, I don't really see any problem. Come to think of it, I've probably sent millions of soldiers to death in games like Europa Universalis and Age of Mythology

Not to mention how many peeps I have drowned or tortured in multiple ways in Rollercoaster Tycoon.

Wasn't RCT supposed to me a non-violent game? I thought it teaches you how to run a business and manage money.

Ah, but what use is a person with emotion in business? They say pyscopaths are quite sucessful at reaching for the high places. If you can't drown or torture people then really, running a bakery or pizza hut isn't for you.