Good Morning!

The fighting in Iraq has lasted roughly a year and half longer than our involvement in World War II. The military is still in conflict with the Taliban in Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden has not been captured. In addition to the global war on terrorism, the United States sends troops to countries in need of relief and aid. Thousands more are stationed in the United States, ready to act if the country is attacked. In the fiscal year of 2007, 80,407 people joined the Army, 37,361 people joined the Navy, 35,603 people joined the Marines, and 27,801 joined the Air Force (Baker III, 2007). It takes an aggressive marketing campaign to enlist young men and women in these numbers. The Department of Defense has requested $3.3 billion (from a total budget of $515.4 billion) to spend on recruiting for the fiscal year 2009 (Hellman and Sharp, 2008). Many are familiar with the television commercials stressing their “Army Strong” theme and the website they encourage you to visit, goarmy.com. I see these commercials mainly during sports programs or on MTV. Obviously, the aim is to reach the demographic of young males. The cultural influences on this generation is quite different from the cultural influences on previous generations. This generation has spent a larger fraction of their leisure time playing video games. Realizing this, the Army developed a military shooting game called America’s Army on a $7 million budget (Downing, 2004) and released it for free in 2002. The game first came out for the PC, but new installments of the game have been released for both the PC and gaming consoles since then. The developers of the game worked closely with the military to make the game as realistic as possible. In an interview with a gaming website, the director of the game Chris Chambers said, “The goal for the America’s Army game is to communicate with civilians the roles, opportunities and values within the U.S. Army” (Callaham, 2006). The game has 8 million players who have registered through the game’s website (Schiesel, 2008) and about 33% of recruitment aged people have come into contact with the game (Downing, 2004).

The game has sparked debate about whether a game should be used as a recruiting tool. Does this video game accurately depict what military life is like? Do we want gamers to be soldiers? What effect does exploring a virtual world have on cognition and the ability for kids to make real-life decisions? Perhaps it is simply a cheap way for the Army to get its name out and has no greater marketing effect than giving away free U.S. Army t-shirts. These are important issues to be raised for two reasons: from our country’s perspective, we should have an army that consists of men and women who will represent the values of our country, and on the individual level, no one should make the sacrifice of serving the country unless they have used the right resources to make a mature decision. Through my experience of playing the game, reading about video games in relation to learning, and surveying others in the Army who have played the game, I have found evidence suggesting that America’s Army is a useful tool for introducing young adults to the military and does not negatively impact their decision making processes. The areas that I have focussed my research on are the realism of the game when compared to the experiences of a real life soldier, the online gaming community as public forum, the impact the engaging virtual worlds of video games have on learning and cognition, and lastly, how much effort gamers put into learning about the military outside of playing video games.

Though a video game will never be a 100% accurate simulation, this is the most realistic military game I have played. The weapons, vehicles, and equipment are actual Army weapons, vehicles, and equipment. The realism is the result of tireless research. The deveolpers used their connection with the Army to visit traing camps and to practice skills such as parachute jumps (Zyda, 2003). During online play, even though there are two teams, both sides always have the perspective of a U.S. Army soldier while the opposing team are enemies. the charachter has no special abilities that a real soldier would have; therefore, in order to survive you must use the tactics of real-life soldier. Unlike other shooting games like Halo or Half-Life, the player is never alone and must communicate and strategize with their teammates. But gamers are not soldiers, so how do they know how to behave like one? In all video games, the method of trial and error is essential. Players subconsciously learns the effectiveness of guns and tactics by the failure and success of thousands of encounters with their virtual enemies. Practice will teach players that is best to shoot the automatic rifle in short bursts, and that finding cover is essential. If a player does not follow the internaitional warfare laws, America's Army kicks the player out of the game. Also, consistent with the experience of a real life soldier, part of the game is basic training. This part of the game is as realistic as the combat portion of the game. A young man who played the game saved a victim of a car accident by applying the medical training he learned in the game. The basic training goes beyond using guns because it also includes topics such as how to provide medical assistance and marksmanship. It also introduces the values in the Army: loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity, and personal courage.

Even when games fall short of realism, gamers discuss these issues in online forums. For instance, I came across a forum on the official America’s Army website where players were able to talk directly to the developers. One gamer started a discussion topic called “How about realistic ballistics?” where he asked, “When shooting long range, knowing your drop and drift is really important, but in (America’s Army) it's hold dead on. How about some way to compensate for distance and wind conditions in the next (America’s Army)?” The next post is from a person affiliated with the army: “95% of all engagements take place under the 300 meters all soldiers zero their rifles too, so bullet drop would have little to no effect. And we have no way of telling us which way the wind is blowing or how hard it's blowing.” The gamer was aware of the fact that wind was absent in the game and wondered if it could be included in the next game. The person affiliated with the army told him that in actual combat that wind is rarely a factor. This is significant for four reasons. First, the gamer was thinking about the realism of the game and was curious enough to ask. Second, his comment was viewed by many other gamers online, many of whom responded with their own comment. Third, his question was answered by someone who can give him an accurate answer. Fourth, even minor issues such as wind were taken into consideration when developing the game. These informal questions and answers also occurred while playing the game over the internet. Since online gameplay is team oriented, most players talked about strategy. Which weapons are most useful, where is the best area for cover, and when it is best to rush the enemy or camp. Certainly, the tactics in real warfare are more advanced, yet there is no other place where non-soldiers can manipulate combat scenarios.

People are concerned with the psychological effects that playing video games have, and whether these effects might cause kids to join the army for the wrong reasons. All forms of media have a cultural impact. Should kids learn about the military only through reading about it in history class, watching Saving Private Ryan, and visiting goarmy.com? Critics of the game point out some key differences between video games and other media. Author Diane Levin says, "America's Army taps into so many of the longings of a boy who is coming of age. (If they join the Army) they'll be part of a group outside their parents. They'll feel powerful and important. They'll be masculine and attractive. The game is working to create an image that bypasses the mind and gets to the soul" (Levin, 1998). I agree with this statement because I had similar feelings while playing America's Army. However, this argument is weak for several reasons. The emotions that this game generates are consistent with the rest of the Army's advertising campaign. Television commercials depict men who are strong, attractive, heroic, and driven. This is not wrong. All decisions are based partially on emotion, and wanting to be seen as a hero is normal. In comparison to other shooting games, America's Army does not glorify violence. There is a point system based upon honor rather than getting the most kills. If there is a group of recruits who enlisted to live out their violent fantasies, these fantasies were caused by other games (assuming they can be traced to video games in the first place).

Another concern is that America's Army reaches too young a demographic. The game has a teen rating, but it can be downloaded on the internet by anyone. It is played mostly by teens and twentysomethings. Susan Linn, a psychologists and author reasons, "There should be different standards about marketing to kids. The frontal cortex of the brain, where judgment sits, doesn't fully mature until the late teens or early 20s. (Kids) tend to be more swayed by emotion because of that''(Ryan 2004). Again, this is not really a criticism against America's Army, rather it is a criticism against the Army's larger marketing strategy because there are plenty of kids who watch sports on television too; they probably have had exposure to the army from this medium before they started playing videogames. This argument sounds similar to attacks on cigarette and alcohol companies, but when kids get exposure to the military there is no "harm" done until they reach enlistment age anyways.

On the surface, the recruiting objective of America's Army is consistent with the rest of their marketing strategy. But maybe the reason people attack the game and not commercials is because the game is more powerful. There is more interaction involved in video games, so it should be examined seperately from other forms of media. Gamer and author James Paul Gee examined this idea in his book What Video Games Have to Teach us about Literacy and Learning. He too sees video games as a form of media that can be more powerful than video, text, or audio. Video games are not distracions or distortions of the real world. Instead, they are a part of the real world where learning can take place. He identifies 36 learning principles that are practiced when playing video games; four of them are especially relevant to America's Army. First is what he calls the semiotic domain principle. Learning involves recognizing relationships between differnent objects and symbols. The military is semiotic domain. When a player associates recoil with firearms, he has learned something through the semiotic domain principle. Another is the "Psychosocial Moratorium Principle" that he borrows from Eric Erickson. This occurs when people are able to behave in a place where there are low levels of consequences. Obviously, a gamer has no risk of getting killed, yet there is still a feeling of accomplishment during the gaming experience. Next, he identifies the probing principle: acting on the world, discovering its rewards and consequences, forming a hypothesis, and acting on the world in a new manner. Reading does not support the probing principle because there is only one action and one outcome. Finally, the affiinity group principle states that individuals learn best when they are surrounded by others who share their interests and goals. The online gamers playing America's Army is an affinity group similar in some ways to platoons.

Since video games meets the criteria of so many learning principles, James Paul Gee has shown playing a video game often is more engaging than reading or watching a video. Furthermore, America's Army has real military elements placed in the game, so gamers are not learning within a fantasy world even though it is a simulated one. But what if too much learning takes place in America's Army? Even if there are things to be learned playing the game, people play video games so much that they probably never read or talk about the military outside of the America's Army community. I did not find this to be the case when I interviewed some young men in the Army. Some had played the game habitually, and others had only played the game once or twice because they preferred other shooting games. The common theme I found in my interviews is that nearly everyone had done a lot of research (outside of playing video games) about the Army before enlisting. The most common forms of research were reading material that was online or received through the mail and talking to recruitment officers and peers who shared an interest in the Army. For most, the period when they first investigated the Army to the time decided to enlist was over six months. Each of their paths that led them to the Army were unique, but none of them took their decision lightly. They all knew that joining the Army would change their lives and invested enough time to be well informed about their decisions. Perhaps the most important responses came from the section where I asked them to briefly describe why they joined the Army, all of their answers were mature responses.

The last thing to keep in mind is the Army's ultimate objective: to recruit in a cost-effective manner. One may think that once the Army has got a young man or woman to enlist, their recruitment process for this individual has been a success. This is false. In basic training, one out of five drop out due to failed expectations of the Army. This costs the Army $2.2 billion per year because they have already spent money training this group in addition to the money spent recruiting the group. Therefore, it is in the best interest of both parties that recruits get an accurate picture of what Army life is like.

As the world of media continues to find new ways to reach all of us, it is important to acknowledge the pros and cons of having these new sources of information, particularly when the information is aimed to sell a product. Indeed America's Army is trying to sell a product, a job offering; this game gives as realistic picture of what being a soldier looks like than job interview would in the civilian world. It shows the player the many roles of a soldier, and communicates the expectations placed on those serving in the Army. Furthermore, the game is a new, yet often times more effective, medium for young people to investigate the Army. Finally, both the Army and the recruits have incentive to communicate to each other in an honest manner. Using video games for something other than entertainment is a new concept. Yet the potential for education and advertising seems promising. As usual the world's strongest military force is one of the first to realize new technology.

Works Cited

Baker III, Fred W. "Services Attain Strong Recruiting Numbers for Fiscal 20."
American Forces Press Service News Articles. 10 October 2007. U. S. Department of
Defense. 7 May 2008 http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=47748

Zyda, Michael. "The Cyberworlds Talk 2003" The Moves Institute. 7 May 2008
http://gamepipe.usc.edu/~zyda/presentations/CyberworldsTalk2003.pdf

Downing, Jim. "Army to potential recruits: Wanna play?" Seattle Times 7 December 2004

Callaham, John. "America's Army Interview" Firing Squad. 21 June 2006
http://www.firingsquad.com/games/americas_army_interview/

Schiesel, Seth. "Video game evokes detachment of war" New York Times. 18 March 2008
http://www.winetravel.com/article/20080420/NEWS/804200358

Ryan, Joan. "Army's War Game Recruits Kids." Commondreams.org Newcenter. 23
September 2004. http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0923-11.htm

Levin, Diane. Remote control childhood? : combating the hazards of media culture.
Washington, D. C. : National Association for the Education of Young Children.
1998.

Gee, James Paul. What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New
York: Palgrave Macmillan. 2003.

Hellman, Christopher and Travis Sharp. Fiscal Year 2009 Pentagon Spedning Request
Briefing Book. Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation Military Budget and
Oversith Program. February 2008. http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/assets/pdfs/fy09
_dod_request_briefing_book.pdf