Phx-Suns.Net

I saw this article at Politico and thought it brought up two subjects that a lot of us here hold dear, video games and politics. Can video games influence our political beliefs and be used as propaganda? Is that something we should worry about or just keep in mind? We know about the view that video games might promote thuggery and violence in games such as Grand Theft Auto and possibly influence young minds. What about games where you build societies and in order to win you have to choose the right political model or pick the right tax rate? And can that influence the political beliefs of that person in the future?

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... T1CcfeCOrU

Civ is also addictive because it is the ultimate political sandbox. Players can mix and match ideologies and economic systems to create a nation just the way they like it. You can have an eco-green police state, a pacifist monarchy, a fascist state with freedom of speech or a free-market theocracy. Call it curiosity, megalomania or a touch of control freak, but humans are fascinated by the chance to shape the fabric of an entire society.

Sim City is only a game, yet it is notable how many people involved in economics say it gave them their first exposure to the field. “Like many people of my generation, my first experience of economics wasn’t in a textbook or a classroom, or even in the news: it was in a computer game,” said one prominent financial journalist. Or the gamer who wrote, “SimCity has taught me supply-side economics even before I studied commerce and economics at the University of Toronto.”

Finding that magic tax point is like catnip for hard-core Sim City players. One Web site has calculated that according to the economic model in Sim City, the optimum tax rate to win the game should be 12 percent for the poor, 11 percent for the middle class and 10 percent for the rich.

In other words, playing Sim City well requires not only embracing supply-side economics, but taxing the poor more than the rich. One can almost see a mob of progressive gamers marching on City Hall to stick Mayor McSim’s head on a pike.

Yet suppose Civ had been developed in Saudi Arabia. Would theocracy be depicted as the highest form of government? Would free practice of religion be a sign of an enlightened society or a symptom of an immoral one? Or if Civ had been developed in China, would bureaucracy offer the fastest path to progress? If Sim City were based on the Swedish economic model, wouldn’t the game encourage taxing the wealthy at a higher rate than the poor?

Ultimately, the question boils down to whether games influence political beliefs in the same way that they allegedly induce violence. Just think of all those budding economists playing Sim City, or aspiring politicians and policy-makers building empires in Civilization. “Videogames can disrupt and change fundamental attitudes and beliefs about the world, leading to potentially significant long-term social change,” writes games scholar Ian Bogost in his book Persuasive Games.

I don't buy it at all. There is no significant link between video game or movie violence and actual violence (this has been shown in a number of studies). There are, of course, cases of school shooting where we hear how the killers "trained" by playing COD or some other FPS game...but the studies are all extremely flawed. Back in the 70s and 80s, if you had two boys go see a kung fu movie, you know what they do right after the movie? Hit each other a bit. Using the cases of actual school shooters as the sample for your study will, needless to say, give some skewed results. Pretty much every kid, boys and girls, in the past 15 years plays video games. And violence has mostly been consistently going down. So, on to the article.

Complete nonsense. OK, if you grow up thinking Sim City is realistic, then fine, I guess you might fall into this trap. But, if that were the case we should see be seeing a rising (and huge) tide of people buying into the supply side economics of Reagan, which landed us in a depression that saw Bush the First being a single term president.

There are 50,000 different ways (I am being highly conservative) to win at Civilization. Depending on the round you play, you have to play differently every time. Sometimes you exploit religion, sometimes you go war monger, sometimes you just try to be everyone's best friend (and you always avoid Ghandi). There is no chance in hell anyone playing that game who has a rational mind comes away actually thinking they know how to manipulate the world and take over.

God, I am sick of people blaming video games for crap. I'm going to go raze Byzantium in my Civ V game right now, out of spite. Be back later.

PS: Video games CAN function as art, which can certainly help shift opinions and raise awareness about social issues. None of the games mentioned here do that.

Sure caught you in a sensitive mood. I mentioned the violence almost in passing because the article did as an example that some people think video games can influence some people's real life decisions and actions, but the violence part isn't what this story is about or the topic of the thread. My favorite PS game is GTA or Call of Duty and deliberately getting into as much trouble as possible is the best. You obviously think that video games cannot influence people's actions in real life. They don't in mine, but not every person is the same. The Columbine guys probably liked the game the same way we do. I think I remember them as being picked on in their school and one day decided to go postal and the video game was just the inspiration for their revenge that would have taken some form regardless. This ties right in with the gun thread, but really is not what this thread is about.

The thread is about certain people/groups deliberately using video games or potentially using them in the future to promote certain political positions in the background without us knowing it was going on. I will take your post to conclude that you don't think it is feasible Ghost.

Complete nonsense. OK, if you grow up thinking Sim City is realistic, then fine, I guess you might fall into this trap. But, if that were the case we should see be seeing a rising (and huge) tide of people buying into the supply side economics of Reagan, which landed us in a depression that saw Bush the First being a single term president.

I don't believe they call it supply side economics in the game, I think they just let you pick tax rates for the different income groups along with other things, so I doubt anybody would know it was supply side economics until later when they studied it in college. They would just think taxing the poor at a higher rate than the rich was a good thing according to whatever game or taxing the rich a lot more than the poor was a good thing in another game.

In the article they mention cases where video games are already being used as propaganda.

“Videogames can disrupt and change fundamental attitudes and beliefs about the world, leading to potentially significant long-term social change,” writes games scholar Ian Bogost in his book Persuasive Games. Bogost co-designed the Howard Dean for Iowa computer game to drum up support for Dean in the 2004 election.

Already, games have become propaganda tools. During last year’s Israel-Gaza conflict, several games were released by supporters of Israel and Hamas. Google ultimately removed them from its app store, while Apple has refused to allow games on the Syrian civil war to be sold on its store.


I am already paranoid about big money taking over politics and todays news being propaganda and not news in a lot of cases. Many people use film and art to promote political positions. If I took a poll, I would bet that most Republicans think Hollywood is Liberal and uses movies to promote liberal thinking. If I were to take a poll, I would bet that most Democrats think the NRA is pro GOP.

We have a propaganda wing of the military that does nothing but spread the viewpoint we want spread in certain parts of the world.

The money going into politics today is staggering and people will do all kinds of thinks to influence our opinions. Now corporations are people and are allowed to have corporate views on politics and religion and are actively trying to influence people.

I am not advocating getting rid of video games. I would die. I am just saying if I had a lot of money and wanted to influence people's minds I might consider using video games as one of my tools just like FOX is Conservative and MSBNC is Liberal. I think if I do some digging I could probably find a lot more than this article.

Militaries using video games around the world to promote enlistment

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2 ... s-military

I have been on the Kuma Games site, an online entertainment developer and, according to reports on Iranian television, an international distributor of military propaganda. Kuma produces a range of games, from second world war air-battle shoot-'em-ups for the History Channel, through to the carnivore-themed I Predator, a tie-in for the cable station Animal Planet. Yet it's the company's Kuma\War series of topical military games, as well as a more discreet line of Arabic-language first-person shooter games, that have piqued media attention. During a televised confession on Iranian TV, alleged US agent and former marine Amir Mirzai Hekmati said he had worked for Kuma, and it was a CIA front company.

Though his words cannot be regarded as the unvarnished truth, publicly available government documents indicate that Hekmati had been a Kuma employee, while Kuma's CEO, Keith Halper, admits to taking on military work. If his words are true, Kuma\War are only one of a number of bloody titles produced under varying degrees of military aegis.

In 2001 Syria's Afkar Media published Under Ash, in which players take on the role of Palestinians fighting off an Israeli assault; they followed this in 2005 with Under Siege, and in 2008 non-violent children's game Road Block Buster, in which players take on the role of "'Maan' the boy with a thousand way to get over any barrier or road block implanted by Israeli Defense forces". In 2003, developers linked to Hezbollah entered the market with a Special Force series, a set of PC war games set in Lebanon.

In 2007, Iran's Association of Islamic Unions of Students released Special Operation 85: Hostage Rescue; a first-person-shooter game wherein players aim to free two Iranian nuclear scientists kidnapped by the US. The game was published in response to Kuma's Assault on Iran, which was based around a US assault on an Iranian nuclear facility.

There are also more formal offerings from the world's leading powers. America's Army, a free online simulator, was published by the US military in 2002 to aid recruitment. The British army launched their online game Start Thinking Soldier in 2009, to drive interest among 16- to 24-year-olds. Then in May last year, China's People's Liberation Army unveiled Glorious Revolution, a Call of Duty-style game for both military and domestic markets.


http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/01/ ... games.html

In 1999, the military had its worst recruiting year in 30, and Congress called for “aggressive, innovative” new approaches. Private-sector specialists were brought in, including the top advertising agency Leo Burnett, and the Army Marketing Brand Group was formed. A key aim of the new recruitment strategy was to ensure long-term success by cultivating the allegiance of teenage Americans.

Part of the new campaign, helping the post-9/11 recruiting bump, was the free video game America’s Army. Since its release, different versions of the war game have been downloaded more than 40 million times, enough to put it in the Guinness book of world records. According to a 2008 study by researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, “the game had more impact on recruits than all other forms of Army advertising combined.”

Not only are government-developed games spreading propaganda. Game developers are now accepting the norms set by the government like in Scribblenaughts where the game set’s a puzzle for you to solve by conjuring items. In one puzzle you get a mission called “Peacefully break up the Rioters!” What would a sane person try first? Well, I tried “Diplomat” and “Peacekeeper”. Neither had any effect. So I tried “Tear Gas” and had the crowd crying and disbursing in seconds, immediately earning a gold star just as you would in school when you have done something right! You can watch the video … of me playing the mission.

Now that the gaming industry have been infected by government propaganda they are now constantly sending the information they want to your kids.


http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/12/0 ... ning-tool/

The latest document dump from former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden is getting a lot of deserved attention for revelations that international security agencies are taking steps to monitor communications inside online games. But those leaked documents also include an in-depth report on the potential for games to be used as recruitment, training, and propaganda tools by extremist organizations.

Nodack wrote:I mentioned the violence almost in passing because the article did as an example that some people think video games can influence some people's real life decisions and actions, but the violence part isn't what this story is about or the topic of the thread.

I commented on it because it is relevant, and also because you brought it up, and it has been heavily debunked in study.

You obviously think that video games cannot influence people's actions in real life.

Not entirely true; for most people, they will not influence your life more than watching a kung fu movie. There is a small subset of the mentally ill who may be affected, but they are very small, and video games are likely the least of their problems. Also, I specifically called out the sort of video game that can convey a social message and thus indirectly affect the way we think.

I think I remember them as being picked on in their school and one day decided to go postal and the video game was just the inspiration for their revenge that would have taken some form regardless. This ties right in with the gun thread, but really is not what this thread is about.

Exactly, they would have done it anyway. And this IS what the thread is about. You are talking about a certain type of mental psychosis, and I do not believe that the one you speak of is radically different from the one that has been discussed at length in public debate for decades. So, let's carry on.

The thread is about certain people/groups deliberately using video games or potentially using them in the future to promote certain political positions in the background without us knowing it was going on. I will take your post to conclude that you don't think it is feasible Ghost.

Feasible, MAYBE. Not currently happening, though. Not with Sim City and Civilization, certainly.

I don't believe they call it supply side economics in the game, I think they just let you pick tax rates for the different income groups along with other things, so I doubt anybody would know it was supply side economics until later when they studied it in college. They would just think taxing the poor at a higher rate than the rich was a good thing according to whatever game or taxing the rich a lot more than the poor was a good thing in another game.

They aren't learning the term, but they are learning the concept? Distinction without a difference. Also, you are proving my point by bringing up the different dynamics of different games. The fact is, those games do not really do a good job of modelling reality. And most gamers are smart enough to realize this, and do not identify the little square/hexagons on their strategy game screen as being realistic in the real world.

In the article they mention cases where video games are already being used as propaganda.

They mentioned a case of some games being released in a limited market IN A RELIGIOUS EXTREMIST ENVIRONMENT that were being used as propaganda. They did not, however, show that games are used as propaganda in a larger sense, or even that the propaganda of those games was working. As I said twice, sure, games can convey a political message. I do not believe that they are generally being used as such. And the games the article focuses on certainly are not being used as such.

I am already paranoid about big money taking over politics and todays news being propaganda and not news in a lot of cases. Many people use film and art to promote political positions. If I took a poll, I would bet that most Republicans think Hollywood is Liberal and uses movies to promote liberal thinking. If I were to take a poll, I would bet that most Democrats think the NRA is pro GOP.

Now now, you accused me of straying from the subject after I replied to the content of your post...you are going much further off into left field here. Not relevant.

We have a propaganda wing of the military that does nothing but spread the viewpoint we want spread in certain parts of the world.

We sure do. So what? The Army sponsored the game "America's Army" back in the day, and still make it to this day...I played it extensively, and I didn't sign up. I didn't see their numbers skyrocket, either. I'm not saying there is no propaganda in games. I'm saying that games do not affect peoples' behavior much at all.

The money going into politics today is staggering and people will do all kinds of thinks to influence our opinions. Now corporations are people and are allowed to have corporate views on politics and religion and are actively trying to influence people.

People play games to have fun. I like to play the villain. Or more often, the sorta-noble thief. I'd never rob someone for real, but in a game I will do that all day, every day. I would never deliberately run 100 pedestrians and steal a SWAT van just to get the opportunity to grab a tank in real life, but in GTA, that's how I end every session (I usually die too soon). I would never get involved in a land war in Asia OR backstab a good friend, but in Civ, I will do those things without blinking an eye.

I am not advocating getting rid of video games. I would die. I am just saying if I had a lot of money and wanted to influence people's minds I might consider using video games as one of my tools just like FOX is Conservative and MSBNC is Liberal. I think if I do some digging I could probably find a lot more than this article.

OK, so you might do it, but the article implies that it's happening on a large scale, by picking a few of the bigger game franchises that are around today in Sim City and Civilization. Those both go back to the early 90s, and maybe earlier. And it's just not happening, particularly in the ways the article implies it should be. Also, evidence from investigations into other game types strongly implies that gaming behavior does not affect behavior in real life. Again, we do not have a massive group who has grown up playing Sim City that supports economic behavior that they may never have heard the term for, but which you and I would describe as "supply side economics."

Sorry if I sound "sensitive." I just see this as another version of the tired Jack Thompson nonsense.

OK, is your point that video games can be used as propaganda? If that's all I'm arguing with, then yes, they can. I apologize for the long winded posts.

But I don't think there is evidence to support that they work. Which makes it a non-starter.

Also, I'm not trying to attack you. You're the messenger. I'm arguing with the message, and in particular that article you posted. I know you are a gamer (like me), and aren't turning into a megalonaiacal dictator, although if you are, send me a PM and we can compare notes, because I have ideas.

Yes I am arguing that video games can be used as propaganda.

We sure do. So what? The Army sponsored the game "America's Army" back in the day, and still make it to this day...I played it extensively, and I didn't sign up. I didn't see their numbers skyrocket, either. I'm not saying there is no propaganda in games. I'm saying that games do not affect peoples' behavior much at all.

But I don't think there is evidence to support that they work. Which makes it a non-starter.

This was in my last post

In 1999, the military had its worst recruiting year in 30, and Congress called for “aggressive, innovative” new approaches. Private-sector specialists were brought in, including the top advertising agency Leo Burnett, and the Army Marketing Brand Group was formed. A key aim of the new recruitment strategy was to ensure long-term success by cultivating the allegiance of teenage Americans.

Part of the new campaign, helping the post-9/11 recruiting bump, was the free video game America’s Army. Since its release, different versions of the war game have been downloaded more than 40 million times, enough to put it in the Guinness book of world records. According to a 2008 study by researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, “the game had more impact on recruits than all other forms of Army advertising combined.”

I'm not even saying it's good or bad, I'm saying that there is evidence to support that they work. I showed several examples of other countries doing the same thing and it makes sense. How successful are they? That answer is almost impossible to know. If they are using it then they must think they work.

OK, so you might do it, but the article implies that it's happening on a large scale, by picking a few of the bigger game franchises that are around today in Sim City and Civilization. Those both go back to the early 90s, and maybe earlier. And it's just not happening, particularly in the ways the article implies it should be. Also, evidence from investigations into other game types strongly implies that gaming behavior does not affect behavior in real life. Again, we do not have a massive group who has grown up playing Sim City that supports economic behavior that they may never have heard the term for, but which you and I would describe as "supply side economics."

As the quote suggest, some people got their first views on economics from playing computer games.

“Like many people of my generation, my first experience of economics wasn’t in a textbook or a classroom, or even in the news: it was in a computer game,” said one prominent financial journalist. Or the gamer who wrote, “SimCity has taught me supply-side economics even before I studied commerce and economics at the University of Toronto.”

I don't know if those games really care or not if they promote one form or government over another or if they even had any intentions of doing so. I am saying that in todays world ALL forms of propaganda will be used to get a point across and that we should be aware of it. I hate FOX News trying to pose as unbiased news, but if they were forced to have a political bias ranking like movies have ratings I would be a lot better with them. If political party's and large corporations start making video games with hidden political agendas I want people to be aware of it.


http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... T3miM7XnOY
Bogost co-designed the Howard Dean for Iowa computer game to drum up support for Dean in the 2004 election.


Mission Majority Republican video game
http://www.missionmajority.com/

Obama didn't make video games, he put ads in video games like Need For Speed.


Game Politics.com
http://www.gamepolitics.com/category/to ... T3o0c7XnOY

As far as violence goes, a differing opinion:

http://freakonomics.com/2013/12/04/evid ... -violence/

As to the rest, all media has been used for propaganda in some form or fashion. Whether it be paintings, political cartoons, yellow journalism, or films, it's been done. Why should video games be any different?

In my opinion, game developers are there to Get Paid. So they're going to put into games what's popular and sells well. Generally speaking entertainment designed to push a message first rather than a story suffers for the execution.

Since its release, different versions of the war game have been downloaded more than 40 million times, enough to put it in the Guinness book of world records. According to a 2008 study by researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, “the game had more impact on recruits than all other forms of Army advertising combined.”

"More impact" is quite vague. I need actual numbers on how the game itself increased numbers, isolated from other factors that may have been in play. Oops, I left a sentence off from the beginning of that paragraph...I wonder if it relates.

Part of the new campaign, helping the post-9/11 recruiting bump,

Ahhh, yes. Post 9-11. Of course recruitment increased. I damn near signed up after 9-11.

Anyway, yes, you are right. Video games, just like anything else, can be used as propaganda. In a world where cakes can be viewed as having something to say about equal rights, anything can.

And yes, product placement (and ads) are big in games. Because they help pay for the game.

But where I am disagreeing is in effectiveness. OK, Sim City teaches you about supply side economics. I suppose that was probably my first introduction to the concept, too. I was far more interested in learning how to make more money in the game without angering anyone than to think that in the real world it made sense to make more money by lowering taxes on the rich, because that doesn't even make sense...so it wasn't propaganda, it was a game dynamic. Nothing more. Communism in Civilization gives you lower war fatigue; therefore, communists like war more? Nah, that clearly doesn't make any logical sense either.

I think I played Civilization. I wanted to rule the world, but after I reached a certain point and built up a large enough army my people forbid me from taking over other countries because it wasn't nice. That made me mad. I wanted to rule the world and they shut me down. Stupid me picking Democracy.

I usually go the scientific route. Build up an empire that is smarter than everyone...build up all your cities to produce as much as possible (actually, you need to specialize cities based on resources and other factors). The neighbors will fear you, and eventually will attack you...but if you have a modest army waiting in the wings, even with Democracy, once they attack, you start building tanks left and right, and you will mow them over. That's how I usually expand.

But...sometimes, democracy doesn't cut it. If you want to be aggressive, you need to choose your policies accordingly.

God, I love that game. I bet I have poured over 2000 hours into the various iterations of Civ over the years, likely more (possibly much more, I made that number up). I can't tell you how many times I said "one more turn" at 10:00 pm and then saw the sun rise.

That's me and WOW. I kind of gave up on civilization after that. WOW is even getting a little old now. You end up investing many years in your characters and it's like they are part of you in some weird way. Same with Clash of Clans a little bit. My base after years now is a level 126. You just keep upgrading your base and fighting battles to steal other players money and clan wars. Those two games are what I am mostly down to now in the game department. I work late and have my body clock set to 3am sleep time even if I don't work. I got home from Tucson at just past 4 am this past weekend and still played a little just to wind down.

In my opinion, game developers are there to Get Paid. So they're going to put into games what's popular and sells well. Generally speaking entertainment designed to push a message first rather than a story suffers for the execution.

I think you are right. It would be a little dumb and annoying for sure. You fly from one realm to the other to fight political foes and as you are flying Hillary flies up next to you on a Gryphon and says "Don't forget to vote for me" over and over and spouts anti whoever propaganda about people she is up against.

BTW guys, I am not really here to push one thing or another on this topic. I saw the article and I thought it might make some interesting discussion. I am pointing out that politics has noticed the web and video games as possible avenues to advance propaganda and have started thinking of ways to exploit that. Combined with the vast amount of money being poured into politics now, I just think we should be aware of it. I also certainly don't want them taking violence out of video games, but it is worth keeping an eye on.

I recently saw a science show on brains. Everybody has a different amount of empathy built into their brains. They seemed to be able to see it and measure it on a brain scan somehow if I understood correctly. Total psychopaths have no empathy and actually get pleasure out of hurting others. Others have a lot of empathy built in and cannot possibly hurt a living thing and become total tree hugging vegetarians. Imagine if we had the ability to predict who is most likely to go postal? We could make a movie about it and get Tom Cruise to star in it.

Imagine if we had the ability to predict who is most likely to go postal? We could make a movie about it and get Tom Cruise to star in it.

OK, that was funny.