The popularized "America's Army"

The British regular army has too extractn an interest in computer games, more as learn aids than recruiting tools (Gomes).

"America's troops" consists of two distinct comp hotshotnts. One is a Sims-style process of designing an interactive game character. The other incision consists of playing that character in the scenarios that the game provides (Viegas De Sa). According to unmatchable of the game's designers, Michael Capps, the game has "minimal violence," and he further characterizes the game's intent as to demonstrate that troops life is near "values" (Viegas De Sa).

Unsurprisingly, however, "America's soldiery" has attracted its share of criticism, as sho learng an artificial and one-dimensional visualise of military life and particularly of warfare. In the words of one commentator,

If the whole idea is to attract sol burstrs, why non show the whole life of a soldier, in all its aspects? How about a raid into a recently bombed area of Afghanistan, to get around the bodies of the children from the terrorists? If the Army really wants to attract young recruits through this picture game, they should show what has always appealed to young American men: termination and destruction. They should say, "In the Army, there are no continues. You only die once" (Viegas De Sa).

Even the more sophisticated training-aid type games conduct come in for criticism. Commenting on the British training-aid games, the observation was stumble that using icon games

The differences between these Pentagon briefings, action movies, or video shooter games, and films of the World state of war II era such as " wherefore We Fight," whitethorn be attributed biggishly to the differences between the Army of the two eras. The Army of World War II was predominantly a draftee army. Even among those who volunteered rather than waiting to be drafted, only a small proportion wanted to expected to make the military a career. If they volunteered, it was from a sense of patriotic obligation, or in order to have some degree of influence o'er their prospective duty assignments (e.g., enlisting in the Navy or Air Corps instead of waiting to be drafted into the Army and (most often) assigned to the infantry.

Video beset games do not undertake to explain why combat is worthwhile; they take combat for granted. The enemy may be represented as terrorists or the like, but this representation is purely formal; the enemy could just as easily be portrayed as infinite aliens or Imperial stormtroopers from a science fiction epic. The equitable guys have even less need to be defined. "Why we fight" simply doesn't enter into the logic of a video game. The world of the game is one in which fighting is interpreted for granted as inevitable; to fight and try to win is the reason for the game's existence.

Even for soldiers who do not plan to make the military a career, "why we fight" is probably not a major factor in making the cream to enlist. They may indeed enlist partly, even largely, because of limited alternatives, or the promise (not always kept) of training that will be utilizable in later civilian life. Undoubtedly, however, many are incite also, and possibly more, by the perceived turbulence of military life. This excitement undoubtedly centers on the opportunity to use and fire weapons, or be involved in the operation of other large and dramatic pieces of military hardware such as tanks, aircraft, and naval ships. To the extent that military-themed video games, whether Ar
Order your essay at Orderessay and get a 100% original and high-quality custom paper within the required time frame.