ZenGum |
11-15-2007 11:12 PM |
I liked the game but the point the use it to make was only one of several they could have made.
The point they made seemed to be, stop hassling the troops for doing what seems best to them in an incredibly difficult situation. We cannot condone war crimes, but non-criminal mistakes will happen. The trick is telling one from the other. The findings on the big Blackwater shooting are an amazing case of this: apparently three of the shootings were justifiable, but the other 14 weren't. Go figure.
The point I would have liked to see made was that no politician should be allowed to vote for war, nor media pundit call for it, until they have got through 20 levels this game. War movies and computer games often (not always) leave the impression that it's all much clearer - here's a good guy, there's a bad guy, those are civvies, over there is your clearly defined goal - get that and you win. It's been a long long time since we had a war like that.
Equally, I'd like to see this game as a pre-recruitment test. You can't enlist without getting through it. Do you still want to join? Although it would need a few levels of complete boredom as well, like standing sentry in stinking heat for eight hours every day for a week.
|