Rules of Engagement

How Video Games Justify State Conflict

Abstract

Modern consumers have shifted from primarily experiencing war through passive media such as news shows and history books to interactive simulations through video games. The military-entertainment network (MIME-NET) serves as a collaboration between entertainment companies and state defense agencies, and video games have begun serving as tools of soft power, designed to export national ideology and sanitize the reality of state conflict for a global audience. This paper conducts a comparative analysis of the procedural rhetoric in Western titles (like Call of Duty and America's Army) against non-Western titles (like Syrian Warfare and Glorious Mission) to see how their mechanics justify military intervention. This is examined through three rhetorical lenses: distancing, the dehumanization of enemies via technology; sanitization, the removal of consequences to create clean war; and glorification, the gamification of violence through rewards. This analysis reveals that while the gameplay mechanics are nearly identical across these games, the narrative has been flipped. Games produced in the U.S. depict U.S. forces as fighting terrorists, and games produced in opposing countries often frame the U.S. as aiding terrorists. We are entering an era of memory wars in which historical truth is being defined by the nationality of the game studio. Such productions risk cultivating a generation of youth predisposed to accept specific geopolitical narratives.