Extremism and terrorism have infected popular culture in recent years. Television and film heavily feature often one-dimensional factions seeking to cause maximum destruction for ill-defined reasons. Video games are no exception. Military video games in particular such as “Call for Duty” or “Halo”, featuring vacuous terrorist enemies, usually get bosting audiences. Yet, it is far too easy to say that video games are only mindless first-person shooters and endless virtual carnage. Video games have evolved into some rather ambitious works of narrative fiction. They do matter and offer valuable insights into international politics in general and extremism in particular.
Video games are indeed a very particular form of popular culture with a very singular history[1]. Often mercilessly attacked as a dangerous habit and usually treated with contempt, video games do matter. They are more than just mere entertainment or trivial pastime. From the two-dimensional fixed shooter game such as Space invaders (1978) to Call of Duty (2014), video games have evolved into some rather ambitious works of narrative fiction. As such, they do matter and offer valuable insight when examining international politics, warfare[2] and representations of the enemy[3].
Video games offer colossal potential for more nuanced, useful and complex representations of extremism. Players’ understanding of terrorism could be deepened through representations in video games or the simulated experience of “being a terrorist”[4]. Here, I will examine the role of video games in representing terrorism and extremism. In particular, I will discuss Dragon Age 2 (Bioware, 2011) as an excellent example of a game which provides a complicated view of terrorism which underscores their potential. Also, Spec Ops: The Line (Yager Development, 2012) and Unmanned (Molleindustria, 2012) will be discussed as offering a more promising view of terrorism. I begin with an outline of the importance of the representations of terrorism which exist, why and how these might be challenged to emphasise the unique position of video games to enhance representations and perspectives of terrorism and extremism.
Digital Terror: Extremism in Video Games
Some perceive a tendency within video games to present immature and one-dimensional representations of terrorism[5]. Often, this problematic portrayal is presented as stemming from a dominance of FPS (first person shooter) games or a close military link to the games industry[6]. The relationship of the military and the games industry is viewed as a potential for recruitment and propaganda, in fostering a western viewpoint and moulding violence as legitimate against enemies of the west[7]. Looking only at military FPS games, this troubling conclusion does seem plausible.
Terrorists make the perfect video game antagonists. Easily portrayed as intrinsically and needlessly evil, sewing violence and discord for ill-defined purposes, terrorists can be viewed as legitimate targets within games[8]. Under these circumstances, the protagonist, generally a white western male figure within mainstream military FPS, is given the right to subvert authority to eliminate these villains[9]. In legitimising the western view of current-day conflicts, video games could close off debate by narrowing the view of the player to only one side of events. Some games fall prey to the more simplistic representations of terrorism. Modern Warfare 2 (Infinity Ward, 2009) broke ground in the military FPS genre by allowing players to play from the perspective of a terrorist. The representation provided was simplistic. The game’s terrorists were seen as callously violent with little development of any real goals or motivations and the player-controlled terrorist is later revealed to be an US agent infliltrating the group. This explains the lack of time devoted to developing any real discussion of the group’s desires. Military FPS games often portray terrorism in these black-and-white terms, where the player is in the right, backed up by western legitimacy and moral highground to defeat evil terrorists for the greater good. It is important to underscore that not all video games present only one side of events centred on real-world actors. Outside of the gritty, military FPS genre, different narratives are told which may not be set in the real world but do mirror current conflicts and issues. Even some military games allow for a more complex view of war and terror such as Spec Ops: The Line (Yager Development, 2012). These games often focus on single-player campaigns with stronger and more expansive stories to be told. This is significant as it is single-player content which holds the potential to more effectively engage with players and challenge perceptions[10]. Spec Ops: The Line (Yager Development, 2012) provides a far darker view of conflict than is typically presented in military shooters. Playing from a third person view, the player controls the leader of a group of three soldiers on a reconnaissance mission to Dubai following a failed evacuation attempt due to freak 
sandstorms sweeping the area and decimating the city. Within this chaotic setting, a hugely problematic view of warfare is presented. The protagonist, Walker, mistakes a group of civilians for enemy combatants and attacks using white phosphorus, slaughtering around 50 people. The player is forced to walk through this site and directly look upon the destruction caused. Walker discovers a small radio which he carries throughout the game and communicates with Konrad, a former soldier. Konrad presents the player with moral dilemmas such as deciding which of two targets to execute between a civilian and a US soldier, the pair having committed crimes. These difficult choices are continually presented to the player by Konrad, who Walker is tracking down through the game. Upon arriving at Konrad’s location, Walker discovers Konrad’s corpse and learns that he committed suicide before the protagonist’s arrival at Dubai. Walker had been suffering a dissociative disorder to rationalise his horrific actions to himself and his two teammates, all three becoming physically more violent and brutal as the game progresses. The player is confronted with their decisions which were skewed in their presentation due to Walker’s condition. This narrative was hugely impactful, largely thanks to the interactive nature of video games in placing the player at the heart of the story. The realisation that the player-controlled Walker forced these decisions upon the player needlessly and was changing how events were portrayed to the player due to his dissociative disorder confronted a player with a less-than glorious view of conflict and warfare. Complicating narratives of terrorism in the way that Spec Ops: The Line (Yager Development, 2012) did for warfare would provide more nuanced representation which could challenge how players have been taught to think about terrorism.
A second example of a game which demonstrates a potential to challenge dominant narratives is found in Unmanned (Molleindustria, 2012). Unmanned is a unique type of war game. Shifting focus from a battlefield to the day-to-day life of drone pilot, the player undertakes tasks such as shaving, driving to work and spending time with the pilot’s son. The game opens with the pilot having a nightmare about being chased by a group of people in traditional middle-eastern style dress and quickly moves to a scene where the pilot is shaving and narrating his views on terrorism and the US army. The player selects how the pilot responds to other people and how strong the pilot’s views of those he is employed to bomb using drones. Sitting on a sofa with his son, the pilot discusses his job. The disconnect present between the reality of war and the perception of it emerges as the child discusses terrorists while playing a FPS game as one-dimensional villains. Representations present throughout media of terrorism and conflict are presented to the player in dry terms. This especially jarring as a small child explains the right to decimate ‘terrorists’ (any non-western person in his view) and how drones provide ‘infinite lives’ to the military, without considering any possible implications of these views. The game demonstrates the complexities in developing a game which aspires to be ‘realistic’ and apolitical and how these games carry particular messages on conflict. Unpacking these narratives like Unmanned does shows their political messages and lacking representations of real issues and in doing so allows video games to become better equipped to discuss such issues.
Dragon Age 2: Complicating Extremism
Dragon age 2 (Bioware, 2011) is different. The usual, epic “save-the-world-or-face-doom” video game story takes a back seat to a personal narrative centered on the protagonist, Hawke, and their small group of in-game friends. It is through these close relationships that morality in the game is judged. Characters react to player decisions, voicing outrage or approval at Hawke’s choices. Through creating such deep, charming characters, this proves effective and solidifies the personalities of the ensemble. The views of the characters and the issues presented throughout the game reflect real-world contemporary social tensions. The primary conflict outlined through Dragon Age 2 is that between the magic-wielding mages and the Templars backed by a powerful religious institution.
Without being overly descriptive, these groups parallel minorities today and the (religious) institutions or the influential which would question their rights, respectively. It is through this conflict which one of Hawke’s companions, Anders, finds his purpose. I will outline here the development of the mage-Templar conflict in Dragon Age 2 and Anders’ increasing extreme way of dealing with the situation.
“This is the justice all mages have awaited”
Anders is a Mage, a magical minority in the world of Dragon Age, potentially possessing power feared by many (think mutants in X-men), including the game’s primary institutionalised religion. Dragon Age 2’s setting, the city of Kirkwall, encapsulates and magnifies the oppression of mages by the Templars – a group controlled by the religion. In this setting, Anders is forced to hide underground like many mages out of fear of discovery. Conversations with Anders and other characters reveal the fate awaiting them if discovered. The threat of being forced to return to prison-like Circles which house mages from near birth is the most lenient fate mages can expect. A particularly spirited mage, openly defying the Chantry (the game’s religion) and the Templars may be made ‘tranquil’. Hawke is introduced to this practice through witnessing Anders’ 
former lover turned into a husk, devoid of emotion and subservient to the Templars. It is clear throughout Kirkwall that the Templars rule with fear, under the direction of their leader. Dealing harshly and pre-emptively to any perceived threats, the Templar presence is strong throughout the city. Cross-cultural tensions exist within the city. A group of ‘Qunari’ settle in Kirkwall, which Anders and Hawke discover deal with their mages in a more extreme fashion still. Qunari mages 
have their lips sewn shut, forced to wear cage-like armour and are indoctrinated from birth to not to question their status. These injustices towards mages are the motivation for Anders’ rage towards the oppression of his people – it is up to the player whether they view Anders’ outrage as extreme or justified.
The strength of Dragon Age 2 as a video game lies in its ability to put a player right into Hawke’s position. The player grows to know their companion characters through the course of the game, joking, arguing and disagreeing with them. Their personalities evolve over the seven years that the game is set across; Aveline becomes more dedicated to her job and develops a relationship following the death of her husband; and Isabela becomes less self-centered and aware of the consequences of her actions. In the case of Anders, his resolve to save his fellow mages is strengthened. He argues with the other party members about their positions on mage rights not aligning with his own and grows more determined to free mages over witnessing years of mistreatment. Anders and Hawke may clash greatly over this issue, or develop a deep bond or romance, sharing their commitment to help mages however they can. It is Anders alone, however, which is driven to extreme action. This manifests in the final act of the game, as Anders annihilates Kirkwall’s chantry in an inferno which plunges the city into chaos.
“It would be better as open warfare. At least then mages would get a fair fight”
Anders’ extreme act forces players to look into their own positions in the mage-Templar conflict. The dangers of magic are presented as real, this is demonstrated throughout the game, possibly tempering the player’s sympathy to the cause of mage liberation. Witnessing increasingly desperate mages turn to ‘blood magic’ (a taboo form of magic which demands sacrifice and presenting huge risks) to secure their freedom and even Hawke’s own mother falls prey to a mage carrying out a Frankenstein’s monster style experiment. As such, the game presents events and places the player as both observer and participant, calling for Hawke to form an opinion on what is unfolding in his home. This colours whether Hawke is sympathetic, disappointed, or furious at Anders’ destruction of the Chantry as a catalyst for a mage-Templar civil war. The game gives a balanced look at Anders’ increasingly extreme measures, allowing players to reflect on the conflict and the price necessary to resolve it. The fact that the view is balanced means that the game doesn’t fall into the trap of simply producing of ‘good versus evil’ storyline where one side is framed as unproblematic. Though players may sympathise with one side over the other, the divisions within those factions complicate their position, perhaps forcing the player to agree with methods they dislike or try and fail at persuading members to change their minds. Within Dragon Age 2, mages may turn to destructive blood magic to achieve their freedom which the player may view as overly-extreme and harmful to innocent people.
The power of this narrative in a video game comes also from the relationships with what feel like real people, whose friendships matter. The responses of Hawke’s party to Anders’ actions range from distain to shock to muted acceptance. They voice their concerns to Hawke, and the player must respond and try to convince them or battle with their former friends. The player must be committed to one side or the other in the mage-Templar clash and must look right at the methods Anders has chosen to kick-start his war. Through experiencing Anders’ own struggles and views of his people, Anders is a truly sympathetic character, driven to extreme methods through desperation. Anders has composed a manifesto for mage rights, sought to talk to Templars about their treatment of mages; but he has also witnessed the Templars, their leader creating further animosity, crack down on mages more and more as time passes, he has been forced to look at what total control has done to mages, leaving them fearful and cornered. The beginning of the game’s final act foreshadows Anders’ increasing desperation and determination: “Our cause is nearly lost.”
“There can be no peace … I removed the chance of compromise because there is no compromise”
Not only does Hawke look on the Chantry erupt into an explosion, but the player helped the event come to pass. Anders enlists the player to help in distracting the Grand Cleric of Kirkwall’s Chantry, providing her with a chance to rethink her views on mages. The player is unaware of why Anders requires a distraction until the later, during the destruction of the Chantry. Anders reveals that this is when he planted his bomb, putting the player right at the center of the event. This is something I believe that only a video game could really accomplish, forcing the player to acknowledge their role in events. This is impactful especially in the climate which was strong around the release of Dragon Age 2 (in 2011) and persists today, one of fear of ideological extremism and growing apathy to ideological poles in favour of a middle-ground. This is reflected in the continuing “war on terror” and, at the time, a new Conservative-led government in the UK. I see the real-world attitude to (possibly radical) unwavering commitment to a cause, like Anders’ toward mage freedom, showing the potential strength of video games reflecting contemporary issues. In exaggerating issues and placing them within an unfamiliar setting, Dragon Age 2 calls on players to truly consider their own views on those themes and what they are willing to sacrifice and do for their cause; or allow players to see why others would act with severity as Anders did.
Interestingly, Anders was largely successful in his actions. He was fully prepared to accept whatever penalty awaited him for his actions: “And if I pay for this with my life … Then I pay.” Since the release of Dragon Age 3, players are able to see how their choices from the previous games have impacted to inhabitants and the world of Dragon Age, in addition to how Anders’ was successful in promoting a mage-Templar war. For Anders, mages now have the chance to size their freedom from the oppressive Templar order, but for that they must be prepared to fight.
“We were already doomed. I’d rather die fighting”
Dragon Age 2 presented a believable conflict, with roots in the real world, in a mature way. Forcing players to look at the tensions within its fictional city over time and calling on them to voice an opinion on the division is something unique to the medium. Reflecting Anders extremism came at a time when protests raged against economic inequality, religious fundamentalism was seen to be growing and minorities continued to demands rights. Video games needed to look at society through this lens to allow people to see these conflicts in a removed way, with clear ties to the contemporary society. The strong response to Anders as a character from Dragon Age fans shows that the game was successful in creating something controversial and ultimately effective as that was surely the intention. Placing the player at the center of issues such as the ones inspiring Dragon Age 2 is something that I am hopeful video games will continue to do.
Playing at Extremism
I hope to have outlined the different ways in which video games approach conflict and terrorism and the potential for the mainstream military-skewed view to be challenged. The trend to cast conflicts in a ‘good versus evil’ way, which was apparent throughout the war on terror, is something which video games hold the potential to question. Games are in a unique position to challenge players and expand viewpoints thanks to their interactive nature and story immersion[11]. As Laura Templar suggests, the impact of placing players in the role of a terrorist can provide a chance for reflection of the moral implications of violence and causes more reflexivity regarding their own actions. The intentions of game developers are important to consider here, acknowledging the role of the works of fiction on their audiences may contribute to this understanding in a positive way. Video games, like any form of popular culture can provide important insights into the world and allow for new ways of thinking in highlighting how society thinks, functions and on what assumptions it is grounded and reproduces[12]. This could mean a far more developed and human view of extremism and violence. In this way, the concepts could be complicated and not taken as given but instead assessed fully to expose how people turn to extremism and why violence is seen as a viable strategy. Assessing these questions is increasingly important within International Relations[13]. Video games are one way to expose their importance.
Games
Taito (1978) Space invaders, Arcade
Bioware, (2011) Dragon Age 2, PC/PS3
Infinity Ward, (2009) Modern Warfare 2, PC/PS3
Yager Development, (2012) Spec Ops: The Line, PC/PS3
Molleindustria, (2012) Unmanned, PC
Sledgehammer Games (2014) Call of duty Advanced warfare, PC/PS3
References
[1]. Bissell, Tom. Extra lives: Why video games matter. Vintage, 2011
[2]. Breur, J., Festl, R. & Quandt, T., (2012). ‘Digital War: An Empirical Analysis of Narrative Elements in Military First-Person Shooters’. Journal of Gaming & Virtual Worlds, 4(3), pp. 215-237.
[3]. Robinson, N., (2015). ‘Have You Won the War on Terror? Military Videogames and the State of American Exceptionalism’. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 43(2), pp. 450-470
[4]. Schulzke, M., (2013). ‘Being a Terrorist: Video Game Simulations of the Other Side of the War on Terror’. Media, War & Conflict, 6(3), pp. 207-220
[5] Schulzke, M., (2013). ‘Being a Terrorist: Video Game Simulations of the Other Side of the War on Terror’. Media, War & Conflict, 6(3), pp. 207-220
[6] Hitchens, M., Patrickson, B. & Young, S., (2014). ‘Reality and Terror, the First-Person Shooter in Current Day Settings’. Games and Culture, 9(1), pp. 3-29
[7] Schulzke, M., (2013). ‘Rethinking Military Gaming: America’s Army and its Critics’. Games and Culture, 8(2), pp. 59-76
[8] Schulzke, M., (2013). ‘Being a Terrorist: Video Game Simulations of the Other Side of the War on Terror’. Media, War & Conflict, 6(3), pp. 207-220
[9] Robinson, N., (2015). ‘Have You Won the War on Terror? Military Videogames and the State of American Exceptionalism’. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 43(2), pp. 450-470
[10] Breur, J., Festl, R. & Quandt, T., (2012). ‘Digital War: An Empirical Analysis of Narrative Elements in Military First-Person Shooters’. Journal of Gaming & Virtual Worlds, 4(3), pp. 215-237.
[11]. Breur, J., Festl, R. & Quandt, T., (2012). ‘Digital War: An Empirical Analysis of Narrative Elements in Military First-Person Shooters’. Journal of Gaming & Virtual Worlds, 4(3), pp. 215-237.
[12] Robinson, N., (2015). ‘Have You Won the War on Terror? Military Videogames and the State of American Exceptionalism’. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 43(2), pp. 450-470
[13] Fierke, K. M., (2014). Political Self-Sacrifice: Agency, Body and Emotion in International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International
One Response to “Digital Extremism? Frisking Terror in Video Games”
March 18, 2016
Digital Terror: Frisking Extremism in Video Games | adam.[…] http://explosivepolitics.com/blog/digital-extremism-frisking-terror-in-video-games/ […]