Incoherently Fictional

After reading Fiction and Video Games as a Vehicle for Political Propaganda, I realized that I had never really played a video game and thought deeper about the messages it was trying to send across. I found myself pondering the incoherent world games and how they send subtle propaganda messages to players. A perfect example of this is the classic arcade video game Donkey Kong.

Donkey Kong was released in the very early 1980's, and has been one of Nintendo's most popular and most recognizable games. Donkey Kong is a game about Mario trying to save his wife, Pauline, who was taken and kidnapped by the ape Donkey Kong, the villain. As mentioned in Fiction, Donkey Kong is an incoherent world game, utilizing cutscenes and propaganda to become a fictional, interactive video game that cannot be explained in the nonfictional world. Donkey Kong also uses some aspects of wordly views to send across a propaganda message that fills in the incomplete fictional world.

Donkey Kong is set up with a cut scene, a scene of the gorilla climbing up a ladder and placing Pauline at the top, and sneering at the players. After that first stage, another cut scene is used where Mario and Pauline have a heart between them, but the ape pulls Pauline away, stretching and ripping their heart. This use of cut scenes sets up the plot for Donkey Kong, but also does not affect the fictional time of the game. They do not "modify the game state," as mentioned in Fiction, but do disconnect from play time. It is key to use cut scenes to fill some of the voids the incoherent world game creates, but still leaves most of the questions to simply just game rules.

Being an incoherent world game, Donkey Kong leaves an incomplete world (as mentioned in Fiction) and uses the rules in the game to make up for this. The incomplete world created begs the questions of why Mario has three lives and why does he need to constantly recapture her if he has already done so once (or many) times. The three lives of Mario could be viewed as a reincarnation, but the game suggests that "with only one life, the game would be too hard." (Juul) Donkey Kong also begs the question of the constant saving of Pauline. We could view this as she magically leaves again or the ape has godly powers, but it is answered with the rule of the game: as you capture Pauline each time, the next time is more difficult. Any player could find it hard to answer these questions, if we thought about them, but we can always answer with the rules of the game.

Donkey Kong is a fictional, incoherent world game, but also sends propaganda messages, disseminating a certain message about gender roles. Players are immersed, "the sensation of always being surrounded... by a completely other reality," in the idea that the man always needs to save the damsel in distress. (Delwiche) Although not explicit, Donkey Kong could be seen as trying to propagate the idea of gender roles. It seems far stretched when playing the game, but because it is an incoherent world game, there are a lot of questions unanswered and a lot of the fiction left up to players to interpret. A propaganda message does not need to be blatant, but the idea of a boy always trying to rescue the girl who cannot help herself can be taken as a possible propaganda message about gender roles. It is also safe to say that one may not question if this is a propaganda message concerning gender roles, because it is simply just a rule in the game that Mario is trying to rescue Pauline.

In retrospect, I think Juul and Delwiche raise a lot of good points when talking about video games. Most people see video games as a mindless act, but it is very possible to question games, especially those like Donkey Kong that leave a lot open to the mind of the player.

No Russian

In Doctor Delwiche’s writing Section 2: Discourse and Ideology, he informs the reader about how the use of video games can impact people’s opinions on a wide range of issues. He discusses how one such video game “deliberately taps into the immersive game context and in the hopes of recruiting young Americans into the army” (Delwiche 91). Video games like all forms of media can be used a vehicles of propaganda. I argue that video games can and are used as propaganda that affects the way people think and perceive the world.

The reason why video games make such successful vehicles for propaganda is due to the way in which it immerses you into the situation. Playing the right video game can change the way you think about a subject for better or for worse. PLaying certain video games can make you more or less likely to join the armed forces and others can affect what kinds of food you eat.

Call of Duty is most likely the most famous example of video game propaganda. As one of the most successful video game franchises ever Call of Duty has impacted people’s perception on a large sway of subjects.Call of Duty is a first person shooter that has focussed on World War 2, Vietnam, and imaginative wars in the future that include a world war between the United States and Russian and the United States fighting a confederation that consists of everything south of the Rio Grande.


Call of Duty has at times been criticized for the violence of its video games. The most famous outcry occurred due to a level known as “No Russian” in the game Modern Warfare 2. Along with the main antagonist of the series, while playing as an undercover agent for the United States you partake in the massacre of civilians at a Russian airport. The title of the mission is “No Russian” this is so that the terrorists who commit the act will be viewed as Americans in origin instead of as Russian insurgents. This is known as a false flag attack in the intelligence world. The Russian government blames the United States for the attack and launches a retaliatory attack and World War 3 begins.

The mission acts a piece of propaganda in that it affects the way people think about worldly events. Due to that mission, every time there is a terrorist attack anywhere in the world I wonder if there is a possibility that the attack could be a false flag attack. This is especially true if the attack occurs in a part of the world that is already under tension. This is how a piece of propaganda has affected me. Propaganda does affect the way people view the world.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXBDkevx5lM

First-Person Gaming: Pros & Cons

It has long been a center of conversational debate on whether or not first-person shooter games are negatively effecting the gamers that play them. Like every debate there are two sides to the argument, some people say that the games are negatively effecting the gamers an then there are some that say that the games actually allow people to gain something positive from the gaming experience. In Aaron Delwiche's book The Green Berets to America's Army: Video Games as a Vehicle for Political Propaganda, Delwiche strongly is in favor of the games having negative effects, stating that the "compelling worlds created by game designers have the potential to shape attitudes in dangerous ways." But, to be able to further look into and decide for yourself whether or not you back up Delwiche's view starts with understanding both sides and looking into the psychology behind it.

It is easy to believe in the direct correlation between violent video games and aggressive behavior displayed by the people who play them, but is there really a brain issue at the source of the issue? Dr. Montag from the Life & Brain Center of the University of Bonn believes there is some kind of correlation but it could be more on just the desensitization of emotions rather than an actual change in brain chemistry. If one takes part in violent games as a young child or in a cognitive development less activated in the users of violent games than the non-users. The left medial frontal lobe is the brain structure used to control fear or aggression so this could lead to backing up the theory that people who commonly partake in violent gaming can become desensitized to the material and situations being simulated.  This doesn't effectively answer all the questions about the correlation between violent video games and aggressive behavior, but it opens some doors and still is an area of high concern especially since these games are becoming more accessible to more vulnerable younger population of potential gamers.
period in their life, one could just understand and be able to separate the violent behavior in video games from actual response-needed situations in life. Montag performed brain scans on both users of violent video games and on non-users of violent video games (control group) as the users were exposed to violent and negative images, he found that the left medial frontal lobes were

When it comes to the argument for violent video games actually having positive effects for the gamers involved it all is centered around how these types of games can improve your attention, mental control, and visual skills. Games such as Halo and Call of Duty, which require quick reflexes and fast mental processing, seem to give their gamers potential to develop lasting cognitive skills. There isn't a whole lot of scientific research to back up this theory and most of the articles that are available seen to mainly opinion based, it is almost like this theory is just being introduced to make people who play violent games a lot feel more productive and better about how they spend their time. But, the whole theory is highly plausible and would make sense if it were to be discovered as true. At the end of the day, the two sides of the violent video game argument and what kind of effects it has on the brain and the individual both seem that they will be going at it for awhile longer. As long as there are intense, life-like video games out on the market there will be herds of passionate gamers standing by their side. It will be interesting to see where this debate goes to in the future as it becomes more popular and science becomes more involved.

The Propaganda War

I agree with Delwiche’s argument that video games like America’s Army, Special Force, and Call of Duty are a form of propaganda. According to the article, propaganda is “the deliberate and systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist.”

Video games are a form of media that can be successfully used as propaganda because of four qualities: immersion, intense engagement, identification and interactivity. These four qualities of War based video games make them an influential form of media.

Immersion refers to the idea that video games provide a profound sensory domination through sight, sound, touch, and the perception of bodily movements. Intense engagement is the quality of video games that allows the player to feel like they are in control of their actions. Because of the physical and psychological attachment to the narrative a video game creates, the player can identify with the fictional character and world. Finally, interactivity is a quality of video games that sets it apart from other forms of media such as cinema or billboards, because “the ongoing interaction between these representations and the embodied behavior of the user… makes such images more than images.”

These four qualities make video games an intriguing form of media that gives it the ability to be more powerful than other forms of media. This power has been recognized by the CIA and other government agencies.

For example, former CIA director William Colby worked for a video game company after retiring, and a former marine confessed to working at a video game company with the goal of gaining support for the war against Iran. The success of this form of media is evident in the release of America’s Army, following the 9/11 attacks. This game was downloaded more than 40 million times, putting it in the Guinness book of world records.

There has been considerable backlash towards these games for being a deceiving recruitment strategy. As discussed in the Juul article, video games blur the lines between fiction and reality, allowing players to fill in the gaps. This can be dangerous because the user can fill in the blanks of the war world however they want, instead of with what happens in reality; the fatigue of going on long missions, the constant feelings of uneasiness, and the fact that people actually die.

Every game has a set of rules and a fictional narrative that work together to create the world depicted in the video game. This combination gives life to video games, but according to U.S. Army Staff Sergeant Brian Gonterman who served a tour in Afghanistan, the enemy in these games isn’t sophisticated enough to behave like humans because they work based entirely on systematic rules programmed by the developers. According to Gonterman, “In a game, you know what to expect; whereas in real life, the situation changes every day and you learn by going out of the wire all the time.”

FIFA: Positive Propaganda

In this week’s article, the author wrote about video games as a tool for political propaganda. It referred to video games such as America’s Army and Kuma/War and seemed to attach propaganda to them with a negative connotation. However, does propaganda have to be used with such a negative connotation? I will demonstrate the use of educational propaganda in the beloved video game, FIFA.

FIFA is a soccer video game that is released every year to all audiences worldwide. Arguably one of the most well-known sport video games, FIFA has a reputation for causing its players to be completely immersed in the game play. Just as one would be shaped by the propaganda in video games such as America’s Army, or my example of Grand Theft Auto, FIFA has the same effect.

Especially for actual soccer players, FIFA is a game that can create ideologies of how to play the game. It can be used as a learning tool, and when I was a child, coaches encouraged me to play due to the learning aspect. Tactically speaking, a player can learn how to move off the ball, defensive shape, and individual creativity.

The lessons learned from playing FIFA are engrained in the mind of the player and shapes a perception of how to play the game. This is even stronger for people that do not play soccer. If one goes into the game without knowing how to play the game at all, FIFA, in a way, manipulates the player into learning through the video game. This then creates a response of direct behavior when they go out to kick the ball around to play as they did in the video game. This is also known as identification.

As one can see, the only difference in the propaganda incorporated with FIFA is that it is positive. For a small paragraph the readings spoke of how this may be considered educational, instead of propaganda. However, I find this difficult to argue due to the fact that FIFA creates a “systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist” (pg. 93). The sports video game does this through the same mechanisms of effectiveness as other war video games: immersion, intense engagement, identification, and interactivity.

From my own personal experience, when playing FIFA, one is completely immersed in the game. If someone simply walks in front of the screen for a split second, the player can and will react angrily, backing the mechanism of intense engagement. In fact, there is a list of FIFA "Ten Commandments” that includes rules such as no texting during the game, no walking in front of the screen, etc. The full list is to the left.

The last mechanism of effectiveness to be touched on is interactivity. In the article for this week’s readings, the rewards and consequences described from the cybernetic feedback loop, which the article highlights, are all negative. The author mentions shooting opponents as a success and shooting civilians or walking off a cliff as a failure.

This alone gives the reader of this article a negative connotation with propaganda. If instead a success was a good attack resulting in a goal, and a failure being a defensive breakdown that leads to a goal against you, the connotation behind propaganda could change. Along with this, the educational aspect of learning how to tactically prevent a defensive breakdown is beneficial to the video game player.

If You Starred in a Hardcore, Bloody Game...

When I think of video games, the first example that comes to mind -- surprisingly -- is actually a movie. Hardcore Henry, which premiered in theaters recently, is an action movie that looks like a first-person shooter game. The movie is shot entirely from the protagonist's point of view; the audience sees through Henry's eyes.

One of the ways that Hardcore Henry mimics video games is in the way that it creates its world. In the readings, game theorist Jesper Juul mentions five main types of games: Abstract, Iconic, Incoherent World, Coherent World, and Staged. Hardcore Henry can be classified as an coherent world game.

Most adventure games, including Call of Duty and Half-Life, fall into the category of a coherent world game. Unlike incoherent world ones, "nothing prevents us from imagining [the world] in any detail." The game does not contradict itself and the game events can be explained as part of the fictional world. It is not up to the user to "fill in the blanks." Hardcore Henry falls into this category because it is like an adventure game; there is a clear mission to save his wife. Although there are exaggerated points in the movie, such as highly advanced technology and an indestructible protagonist, it is clearly based on reality.

Hardcore Henry was created using some of the same principles of video games, although there are a few differences. The movie includes cut-scenes, which are "non-interactive sequence[s] of a game that provides backstory or informs the player of the task to be undertaken." Hardcore Henry uses cut-scenes to accomplish both. There are also "tutorial-like" scenes where Henry learns about his abilities, much like game tutorials.

The sound effects and camera viewpoint are also similar to games. When things explode or gunshots are fired, it sounds much like it does in a video game. The way the story is presented in a first-person with someone holding weapons is similar to games like Call of Duty. There are even guns hiding in random places in the movie.

But because Hardcore Henry is a movie and not actually a video game, there are some differences. The most notable one is probably movement. In games, the user interacts with the created, fictional world typically via a game controller, mouse, or keyboard. But in Hardcore Henry, the audience does not interact with the world, even though they may feel like they are the main character.

Graphics are another interesting difference. Video games graphics are computer generated. Hardcore Henry, on the other hand, combines CGI with real-life action from stunt doubles. The first-person effect of the film was achieved using mainly GoPros, which are action cameras that specialize in movement and extreme conditions. Because of this, the "graphics" in the movie are sometimes shaky and unstable, such as when Henry is running or jumping off buildings.

Although the movie feels like a video game, there are certainly limitations. One of the biggest ones is that the fictional world in Hardcore Henry is not infinite, and there is no gameplay variation because the story is set in stone. Perhaps the best analogy for this movie is video game streaming, where players will live-record themselves playing a game for other people to watch. Overall, Hardcore Henry combines both characteristics of video games and movies, and this gives it a unique style.

New Post