As technology improves, gamers can engage in photorealistic and increasingly tactile simulations across a wide fantasy spectrum.
As a recently-released war simulator surpasses $300 million in sales, The Washington Examiner asks why millions of players are interested in virtual war and why the answer may have a wide impact on the future of combat.
Pixels and Policy investigates.
Battle.NET vs. Battleground
The Washington Examiner wonders why millions of gamers spent hundreds of millions on Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. The entire idea may seem silly - questioning why an entertaining, hyped multiconsole release did well - but the question deserves deeper analysis.
The trend of huge-selling combat simulators hasn't gone unnoticed. Several years ago the United States Army released the first-person online shooter "America's Army," a platoon-based combat simulator similar to Modern Warfare 2 and replete with recruitment advertising from the armed forces.
The Washington Examiner article cites growing military interest in transitioning skilled combat gamers into military roles:
Gaming companies have spent tens of millions of dollars developing technologies designed to re-create battle, as well as easy for the average teen to use. More importantly, these teens enter the military already "trained up" in a certain way.A former F-15 pilot described the younger generation of remote drone pilots with awe. They had less training and experience than him, but he felt their years of video gaming had made them "naturals" to the fast-moving, multitasking nature of modern warfare.
Are Armchair Warriors Combat-Ready?
The hand-eye coordination, gaming-as-training idea is an oft-repeated line, but Pixels and Policy remains skeptical. Operating a Predator drone via remote control in a high-pressure environment is certainly psychologically different than playing a warfare simulator from the comfort of an office chair. Self-confidence aside, do the skill sets translate?
A 2003 University of Rochester study showed a positive correlation between extended periods of first-person shooter gaming and hand-eye coordination. But this still doesn't explain whether such a correlation exists between casual gaming and the extremely technical work atmosphere of the active military.
Right now the evidence doesn't back up the claim, and despite being an avowed techno-optimist, I can't bring myself to advocate someday recruiting top-ranked players from war simulators into the armed forces. Just as hype might be damaging the legitimacy of augmented reality, overinflated expectations for the transition from virtual combat to real warfare could jeopardize lives.
An Air Force Colonel referenced in the Washington Examiner article gives voice to some of these concerns:
Until further research can show how gamers versed in casual simulated warfare respond in real-world warfare situations, it might be best to leave the virtual commandos to simulators.
"The video game generation is worse at distorting the reality of it [war] from the virtual nature. They don't have that sense of what really going on."
He went on to tell that he thought the virtual nature of the games, which gave such skills, also made it harder for some to weigh the consequences of their acts. "It teaches you how to compartmentalize it."