Did Hitler play strategy games?
In an article on Futurismic.com, “Seeing Like A State, Why Strategy Games Make Us Think and Behave Like Brutal Psychopaths,” Jonathan McCalmont adds his opinion to the raging debate on the psychological impact of video games. He links strategy video games with political psychopaths such as Hitler: the former causes the latter. McCalmont argues that strategy games turn liberal-minded people into “brutal tyrants” because they shift their worldviews from humanistic to state-centered.
This argument is farfetched.
McCalmont’s article overgeneralizes the impact of strategy games as he ignores the fact that most players of these games can distinguish reality from fantasy.
He believes that the escapism of strategy games is no different than the escapism of corrupt politicians into a state-centered view of the world where there is little concern for the human consequences of actions.
Yet, this comparison is erroneous simply because the players know they are playing a game. Such games, after all, involve actions that are impossible for an average person to accomplish, mainly the conquest of countries in different time periods and places. These time periods can involve the far off past or future as in Civilization or Starcraft, as well as worlds of fantasy like in The World of Warcraft.
McCalmont thinks that strategy games are all “politically savage.” They’re really not.
McCalmont’s simplification of the impact of strategy games is also apparent in his use of historical examples to support his case. In one example, he goes so far as to argue that the major genocides of the 20th century were caused by the state-centered views of tyrants, the same views that are prevalent in players of strategy games.
However, the psychopathy of leaders such as Hitler, Stalin, and Mao must have had some incentives that are unrelated to video games, being that these games did not exist.
Not only is McCalmont exaggerating the negative effects of strategy games, but he is also ignorant about the games themselves. He thinks that they are all “politically savage.” They’re really not. A case in point is the game Civilization. It is complex, demanding that the player use many strategies other than shedding blood to win the game, such as via cultural conquest or winning the space race.
There are also different political systems to choose from in Civilization based on the level of your civilization’s knowledge or circumstances at a particular point in time, as well as democratic elements within the game, such as the happiness level of cities. In addition, there are political, economic, and scientific advisors.
Civilization is a strategy game that is not just a lesson in psychopathic tyranny but rather in political diversity. This can help the player exercise his or her democratic rights and gain a broader perspective of the world.
McCalmont’s belief that players of strategy are psychopathic tyrants or dictators with worldviews that exclude social realities shows that he takes these games too seriously. Any mature gamer will tell you that to play a game, you have to distinguish fantasy from reality.
