Its interesting how the army used the "America's Army" game to promote recruits to join their forces. Touring around in hummers and passing out the game was a very interesting move on their part.
By passing out these games, the likelihood of the players to join the army I think are slim. When playing the game, you would be able to shoot someone or get shot an not have a reaction. You would just be able to restart the game and think nothing of it. If you get sick of it, just turn it off and go along with the rest of your day. In that way, when you use arms in real life, you wouldn't be able to turn it off or restart it.
With that said, I think that with video games that focus on combat and war, it would increase armed conflict because of the inability to differentiate real life and a video game. Although I know that people know the difference, there are still some that claim they didn't know the difference. It would give the mentality that armed combat is how you solve your problems. It isn't just that the game would do it because it is also the parents' job to teach the kids how to solve problems and not rely on what is shown through a screen.
Comments (1)
You make some good points.
I think AA functions more as general propoganda for the army rather than as a direct recruiting tool.
I'm interested in the idea of games where if you die then that's it, no replays.
Posted by Andy Cox | October 1, 2007 11:02 AM
Posted on October 1, 2007 11:02