I work from home most days, and I like me a little background noise, which means the afternoon TV exposes me to all kinds of things you don't see in primetime. Lots of life insurance commercials and ads for disability lawyers, and more court-ordered paternity tests than you can shake a stick at.
I usually just tune it out; however, I've been seeing this commercial lately that's hard to ignore. In the spot, a couple decent-looking young men are hard at work on what looks like a war video game; one of them is intent with control pad in hand, and the other is an insistent backseat gamer. Suddenly, the video game soldier on the screen comes to life, knocking on the glass to get these two dorky slackers' attention-- with disdain in his eyes for their living-room life, he asks them something to the effect of, "You guys want some real action?"
It's an ad for Army recruitment. The message? Playing war video games makes you a wuss-- if you were a real man, you'd go fight in a real war.
There are so many things wrong with this that I don't know where to begin-- let's start with what messages we glean from the ad. First? The Army's targeting gamers... by comparing war to a video game. Think it's a stretch to suggest that the criticism of a sedentary pursuit is a direct comparison? Look a little further-- the ad actually advertises the "America's Army" game, downloadable from the website. At the website, the game says it "provides civilians with an inside perspective and a virtual role in today's premier land force: the U.S. Army." Further, it also claims the game's "an entertaining way for young adults to be educated about the U.S. Army and see some of the career opportunities available to Soldiers in the U.S. Army — all this as a virtual Soldier."
Virtual soldier?
While the bullet points about the game do suggest it's intended to educate interested parties about the jobs available in the Army and the values of "responsible play, training and teamwork," the idea of becoming a "virtual soldier" suggests that by playing the game, civilians can get an applicable understanding about what it's like to be part of a military force-- directly contradicting, actually, the message of the ad's scornful soldier.I actually wanted to play and review this game, but it's a massive download with few seeders. I can get the game mailed to me on disc, but I'm scared to call-- back at the high school career fair, I gave my info to an Air Force recruiter because they were giving away these great T-shirts-- it took three years to get them to stop calling me during dinner.
There are other games on the Army's site that are much smaller, and can be played in-browser. They're all absolutely abysmal as games, but as part of an advertising campaign for enlistment, they raise my dubious brow even more. One's just a cheesy slide puzzle picture, and another's a football game-- but one of them is Basic Rifle Marksmanship-- "Soldiers perfect their marksmanship in Basic Combat Training. See what you can do on the 25-meter range. Play the BASIC RIFLE MARKSMANSHIP game and find out."
It reminds me rather unfortunately of Jack Thompson's comments about how the Columbine killers "trained" for the massacre by playing Doom. While I'm pretty sure that a marksmanship browser game can teach me as much about rifles as Trauma Center can teach me about surgery, the literature for the "Patriot Missile Simulator" and "BlackHawk Challenge" similarly suggests that the games are an approximation of a relevant military experience. The insinuation is there, though never stated outright: If you like playing these, you'll like being in the war.
We're learning a lot these days about the potential of video games as educational tools-- replacing, for example, the informational DVD that the Army used to send out in response to inquiries. And you can't exactly fault them for propagandizing-- the recruiters have a tougher job than ever these days, since we all watch the news and see what the soldiers really go through. Using video games to engage the attention of the Army's target audience-- which represents something like 50% of console owners-- makes good sense from their end. Am I wrong, however, for feeling like this suggestion of equivalency between video games and military service is both deceptive and dangerous-- especially as part of an ad campaign targeted at the video gaming audience? I love Metal Gear Solid. Does that mean I'd love actually being shot at?
I'd like to hear your thoughts-- and if you have a faster connection than I've got, and you play this game, or have played it, I'd love to hear your impressions of the experience.
One final note: Enlistment is a very valid and valuable choice for some, and I support the troops with respect and gratitude-- a criticism of an ad campaign and an enlistment strategy is not a criticism of soldiers.
