Inclusion, Disruption, and First-Person Shooters

Over at The Border House, author Gunthera1 writes about an ad for the new video game "Call of Duty: Black Ops."

The commercial portrays a war in which a variety of people are the soldiers. The commercial includes people of color, men, women, people of various body types, and even a number of professions. All of these people are portrayed as equal soldiers in this war. This commercial implies that this first person shooter game welcomes adult players from a variety of backgrounds and is not simply a toy for men aged 18-25. I cannot speak to the plot or inclusiveness of the game itself, but this commercial is a great example of an advertising agency portraying all gamers. I applaud this ad and hope to see more in the future that feature an asortment of gamers. There are many of us in the community, but it is nice to see a company recognize that fact.

On the one hand, I reservedly agree with the author's sentiments about the recognition of diversity. On the other hand, my first thoughts when I came across this ad the other day were much less positive. Perhaps it was the way in which it seemed to be taking the "war is a game" imagery to a whole new level. In this ad, war seems to become a game for the entire family to participate in.

I think my doubts here are influenced by my uneasy relationship to the idea of inclusion. To illustrate: at PAX Prime earlier this year, I heard a few panelists talk about how "women want to shoot things just as much as guys." Now, I certainly don't want to place the burden of challenging problematic representations and themes in gaming on those who have been and continue to be excluded from the "gamer" category (such as women). Neither do I want to say that nobody can or should ever enjoy playing a game like Call of Duty. With that said, I found myself at the time making connections between the panel's message and that of mainstream gay rights organizations (e.g. HRC) lobbying for marriage and inclusion in armed services: "we're just like you -- we're normal." I wondered whether this message (that including women wouldn't require any fundamental changes to the industry) would be more palatable to some of the attendees than a more disruptive approach. It almost seemed like the disruptive, critical approach was not a possibility: women could be seen as either a niche market or else be incorporated into the general market for games like Call of Duty.

In a later panel, I heard speakers challenge the unproblematic desire for inclusion into dominant genres and fantasies that I'd heard voiced earlier. So there was definitely some discussion that weekend of disrupting dominant narratives and representations in gaming (indeed, even a little organized discussion of cripping gaming). And there is, of course, a great deal of amazing, critical work being done in progressive gaming communities (like The Border House!). The inclusion/normal narrative still looms large from my perspective, though, and when it's adopted by large firms like Activision, I wonder to what extent this is an attempt at neutralization of non-traditional gamer communities and a normalization of the dominant content and genres of the medium.