Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Games & Gameplay >

Military Recruitment via Video Gaming

09:24 / 02.12.05

The Guardian.

Whereas television advertising costs between $5 and $10 per hour to get the US army brand in front of each viewer, the program Colonel Wardnyski is supporting costs an average of 10 cents per hour - based on the $2.5m annual running costs for the website where the game America's Army is available for free download.

And people are playing: 29 million have grabbed a copy, and there are 6.1 million active users.

But that's only the start. The whole purpose of America's Army, a first-person-shooter simulation of army training and combat whose development began in 1999 and which was launched in 2002 (on July 4, Independence Day, of course), is to recruit more soldiers.

Obviously it's not a new thing for da yoof to explore military fantasies by shooting bad guys in video games. And there is probably already a discussion waiting to happen regarding whether this leads to young people joining the armed forces with unrealistic views on the nature of war.

Does the fact that the American military have designed this game with the overt purpose of recruitment make a difference? Is it a legitimate recruitment method? As someone says in the article: "Given that we have a volunteer military, the military needs to recruit. And if it's legitimate for them to use TV and print advertising, what's wrong with doing so through a game?"

Or is it just another game, with no more or less likelihood to motivate someone to join up under false pretences than any other war game?

15:34 / 02.12.05

This just reminds me of something Bill Hicks said once.

"Anyone dumb enough to want to be in the military. Should be let in the military."

I find it rather difficult to be objective about military recruitment but that's perfectly legitimate I think but a valid argument could be convince me otherwise. There are plenty of idiots in the states who follow the good guys and bad guys and "we're the good guys" paradigm and after all america needs protecting from the *terrotists*. They need bums in foxholes judging by the desperate measures being taken.

All Acting Regiment

15:55 / 02.12.05

I think this issue rests on reason. There are valid reasons why somebody, fully informed, might want to join the millitary. If the millitary is trying to circumvent reason, then that's bad.

Is there a reasonable detachment- can a player keep a reasonable distance between the games they play and reality? Does the games industry/presence of computer games in most households in the first world/adoption of "gamer" as a lifestyle do anything to weaken that?

Relatedly, how much of their concept of "war" or "the millitary" does the player get from games? How much from films, or the news?

22:49 / 02.12.05

Krug: None of that post really addresses Loomis' questions. It's not a thread about joining the military in general, it's a thread about the use of videogames as a recruitment tool.

There's one thing that can be said about Amewrica's Army - its intentions were clear from the outset. As such, anybody playing it should know where it's going to be coming from, how its politics and interpretations of real life are obviously going to be skewed. In that respect, I'd say it's probably less distasteful than other games set around real world confilcts - I'm really rather confused about why the Guardian piece should be making out that the game's overt links to the military are worse than if they were subliminal.

Number of people playing? Well, it's a free download. The article says that "between 20 and 40% of new US army recruits have already played the game," but doesn't mention how many of those would cite the game as being an influence on their decision to sign up.

Is it a legitimate recruitment method? Sure. Why not. Just because it's legitimate doesn't mean that it's can't also make you feel fairly queasy. Without more accurate and meaningful figures, though, it's impossible to tell whether or not it's having any real effect. Somehow, I doubt it is. Even a bad game is fun when played with other people - that, along with the fact that it doesn't cost any money, could well be the reason why people are playing it.

17:07 / 03.12.05

This seems relevant.

semioticrobotic

17:52 / 03.12.05

When the game debuted, I remember quite a hubub surrounding its computational/graphical requirements -- because the game was so "realistic" and "detailed" (much the same stir when Doom 3 was released and people were purchasing gaming computers using Doom 3 requirements as benchmarks).

I wonder if the quality of the game (not to mention the price) influenced in any way 1) technophiles who like to get their hands on any Next Big Thing that pushes graphics cards to their limits, and 2) players who like "realism" in their combat-oriented videogames. Perhaps the game was designed specifically to impress at a technological level?

14:21 / 04.12.05

No problem with the recruitment aspect of the game, if you don't like the idea don't download it.

The game itself was mildly entertaining, I've played it on and off for a few months. If anything the self proclaimed realism has confirmed I want nothing to do with the military outside of a first person shooter. The training aspect to upgrade your suit felt mind numbing enough to be realistic.Computer games will have to be far more realistic simulations of the real world before they start making any great impacts on peoples career choice. Somewhere in between Legba, Krug and Hicks - if someone joins up mainly due to playing this game they must be lacking some qualities you would hope the army would be trying to identify in recruits, unless of course they need morons in foxholes awaiting orders to shoot anything that moves.
In saying that I have been considering the purchase of a furry suit, giant plastic ball and a selection of hovering 3D mazes after the genius of Super Monkey Ball

15:23 / 04.12.05

I'll contribute to the thread in a more meaningful way a little later... but in the meantime, it looks like someone beat you to it, Proinsias.

16:07 / 04.12.05

Well, maybe a bit sooner (I'm a mod, after all). Good topic, btw.

Has there been any word on data collection or statistics beyond initial set-up and registration or is the value of the game just promotional? Anything in the Terms and Conditions?

I guess one thing that I'm getting at... I'm curious to see if the army targets or moves to recruit anyone specifically based on performance. Though I think it might be in bad taste (especially if it's not a transparent process), I imagine that there are certainly qualities in the top players that the military may find favorable. Team-building, reaction time, strategy and initiative are qualities that you can get a feel for by watching teams and/or individuals play.

19:09 / 04.12.05

I'd be rather surprised to be honest. This isn't really a recruitment tool to my mind, it's a PR and advertising tool. Who are the Army trying to recruit? 18-25 year old males. If you want to raise brand awareness, using a game is a great idea, and the Army has the bonus that so many popular games are actually based around fictionalised versions of its activities that it doesn't take a lot of tweaking to produce something that's more branded and more specific.

Is it a good idea, generally speaking? Well, I don't think that it makes much difference compared to the general relentless portrayal of the military as a team of negotiators, peacekeepers and general nice guys, who do sometimes invade other countries but only when it's absolutely necessary for great justice. I think, actually, that playing FPS on a regular basis is more likely to instill a relativism concerning the use of force that's not conducive to deliberately risking one's life - take CounterStrike as an example, you could be a terrorist, you could be a counter-terrorist, you're all the same people. Or RTS games; every campaign has a set of arbitrary goals, you know the goals are arbitrary, ergo the message is that military action is not actually in the end about freedom or democracy but actually about a set of objectives that you want to achieve for your own purposes.

unheimlich manoeuvre

22:22 / 04.12.05

Without wishing to trivialise the thread but continuing on the topic of gaming and the military. Given the increasing technological complexity of the American military couldn't the gaming community be the recruitment pool they may require. It's only a small step from a pilot, lying flat on hir back, flying by computer display to someone in a virtual reality booth.
I read an article recently that the military found by decreasing the detail of civilians on tactical displays, they increased pilots reaction times. Too much realism made them less *effective*. (I'll try and dig up the article.)