How Real Is Too Real?

A conversation at lunch inspired me to step outside of my daily RSS feeds and go off "exploring the internet" just to see what I could find. After a mere 15 seconds, I was regretting my decision, having forgotten just how much garbage is online. But then I came across an interesting blog post from "the Back Buffer", which I assume to be just some random guy.

The premise of BackBuffer's post was very simple - he wants more realistic WW2 games. But in reading it I rethought an old idea that had crossed my minds many a moon ago.

When it comes to (war) video games, how real is too real?

Image from gamespy.com (Call of Duty 3)

In addition to being the veteran of countless war games, I also study military history in my spare time. I was even a member of Army ROTC for a semester. But in truth, I know nothing about war. My father was in the Air Force for several years during Vietnam, though he was never deployed overseas. My Grandpa John left the army a brigadier general, serving domestically in intelligence during World War 2. My Grandpa Elmore served over seas during the Korean War, and when he passed away several years ago, still had grenade shrapnel lodged in his jaw.

As a curious youngster, I asked a lot of questions of these three men about the military and about war. When you are young and ignorant, war is cool and exciting. Guns, jets, tanks, pewpewpew to the bad guys. Its almost as cool as dinosaurs or construction equipment. But as curious as I was, I never got a lot of answers to my incessant questions. Grandpa Elmore in particular said very little about his time in Korea. But I will always remember one thing he said to me (I was probably about 10 at the time). "Chris", he said "the things I did and the things I saw, I did so that boys like you would never have to do or see them. War is like a nightmare that you dont wake up from for the rest of your life".

Image from movie-page.com (Saving Private Ryan)

Finding ways to use games as an instrument if learning is something I'm very passionate about. And depending on the type of game and the type of subject it is helping to teach, a certain degree of realism would be required.

From an entertainment perspective, I'm personally of the view that there are lines that should not be crossed into the space of reality. When a war game leaves the realm of an intentionally artificial, intentionally fictional play world and becomes a true recreation of history, I for one, would feel uncomfortable that the sacrifices of so many were reduces to a consumable form of entertainment. In fact, I might even call it disrespectful.

But what if the same "real war" game was created for education and not for entertainment? Are the rules, the stigmas still the same? If a student in a World War 2 class could simulate rushing the beaches of normandy in an virtual environment as close to the real thing as possible, is it a good thing? Assuredly it would provide an enriching educational experience like no other.. but does that give it any more right to cross the boundaries of realism? Or is it just hypocrisy to suggest that a game for entertainment is bad, but a game for education is good?

In the end, I have no answer to this question of how far is too far when it comes to reality in war games. Nor do I know if the means (entertainment or education) justifies the ends (crossing the reality line). But I am forced to wonder if Grandpa Elmore was right... and if some things are better left unknown, and unseen, regardless of the reason you want to know or see them.