War and Virtual Histories

This past Thursday I went with Laurie to the University of Toronto for what is referred to as a Techno Science salon. The salon is a discussion forum in which she and her colleagues in anthropology as well as other departments present various papers akin to their research.

The topic of this salon was the merging of Geo and Techno-Politics. In tandem with this topic, there were several efficacious images and concepts brought to light. One of the papers discussed MMORPGs, (Massive Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games), and their inherent effect on the populace.

The immersive and often highly addictive appeal of games like World of Warcraft (WoW) have introduced several combative developmental skills to otherwise archetypal proletariats. Conceptually, games like this are cultivating a familiarity with a vernacular that is reserved for military purposes. Group campaigns, augmenting rank, various battle strategies; it is all reminiscent of developing particular skill sets to be more effective soldiers.

Of course, using WoW as this example may seem like a stretch, because, hey, it's just a game. But the MMORPG catalogue stretches far beyond the fantastical shores of Azeroth.

One such example brought up during the Techno-Science salon was a game called Kuma/War. This is a virtual environment in which players enact historical military campaigns. World Wars I and II, Somalia and of course Iraq are all fabricated backgrounds for players to carry out simulated missions.

There is a slight twist in this case, however. These stages are set in real-life missions that have in some cases recently taken place. The slogan of the game is "Real World News, Real War Games". The goal for the players of course is to, in effect, ensure that the "good guys" win. Sometimes this means hypothetically altering the course of history (virtually, of course) by changing the outcome of an all-to-real battle or war.

If we consider for a moment the sheer addictive quality to MMORPGs, coupled with the appeal of interacting with others in various simulated battle sequences, we have a ripe ground for swaying impressions of reality.

For example, if you were never taught about the history of the Vietnam war, and you consistently carried out military campaigns from a young age in virtual environments which include real elements (names of geographical locations, actual campaign and battle names, etc.) then would that not alter your impression of history? If you didn't know any better, you may think that the outcome was a success for the US military, given the fact that you've never had any recourse to learn anything to the contrary.

Couple this with the alarming inclusion of missions set in campaigns that have yet to be carried out, in places like Iran, for example. The creators of a game like Kuma/War (who are retired US military operatives) could potentially predict probable outcomes of campaigns yet to be conducted. It could also be a convenient place for the military to scan for the user information of a soldier who is performing exceedingly well.

This may seem like it's getting a little bit paranoid-theory, but it certainly brings up thoughts about the future of online communities and gaming. When the lines start blurring between the real and the virtual, in a historical sense or a soon-to-be sense (and by the way, I am saying nothing about the US in Iran: that is apparently one of the missions you can choose in the game) then we need to be overtly aware of the effect it could potentially have on us.

We need to be aware of the kinds of profiling and impressionistic categorization taking place in these virtual environments. I think it is one thing to hone military vocabulary and develop strategy in a simulated imaginary setting, (I like playing video games too) however when the edges start to fray in between the fabricated and the real, we need to be cognizant of the potential bias and the sway on impressionable minds.

This is a relatively frayed analogy, but when I was young, I used to play a board game called RISK. Many people know it, but for those who don't, it's essentially a military game carried out on a map of the world, where players strive for complete control. Even though the game creators clearly state right on the playing board that the map of the world is used strictly for the purposes of the game (not an accurate geographical depiction of the continents, in other words) I still picture that map when I think of the location of a country on a continent. I played the game enough to engrain that impression of the world into my psyche, perhaps forever.

Even though the game is based on reality to the extent that actual country names are listed, to use the map as a geographical reference point would be a mistake, seeing as it's not factually correct. But I keep doing it.

I guess that's my point.