War, What is it Good For?

John Tynes has an article up entitled "Why We Fight," in which he examines the whole mentality behind games about war or other situations employing lethal methods for specifically political means. He mentions games like Call of Duty, Medal of Honor, Wolfenstein, Splinter Cell, Rainbow Six, and so on. After pointing out that as a longtime gamer with countless kills to his name he is a member of the audience he describes, he suggests that one reason such games are so popular is because of their ability to let the player excercise the sort of absolute uncompromising force most of us don't have in the real world unless we happen to be dictators of fascist states.

When we play these kinds of games, when we step into the role of the soldier, the spy, the conspirator, the operative, we are in every case taking the place of the hypothetical politicians who have failed us. If politicians did their jobs better, Sam Fisher would be out of work. Rainbow Six would run a gas station. Soldiers would stay home. But these games begin at the point where politics has failed, where the will of the state to survive can only be expressed through violence. At this point, it's up to us. We are exceptional in every way: moral, compassionate, clear-headed, deadly. People face the world with the tools they hold in their hands, and in these games those tools are weapons. The joystick only lets us interact with people by killing them. The game only lets us solve problems with violence.