Dear viewer, these subtitles were generated by a machine via the service Trint and therefore are (very) buggy. If you are capable, please help us to create good quality subtitles: https://c3subtitles.de/talk/749 Thanks!
For four years in Hollywood
endgames games, the bad guys, they were
always these World War two era Nazis,
they were they were the bad guys.
And and then something interesting
happened is I said
with the clash of digitalization.
So let's give them a round of applause.
I want to start out rather oddly by
saying I'm not really sure if I agree
with my own thesis
now let me explain.
The work I'm presenting today is stuff I
left out of my doctoral dissertation on
radical Islamic thought.
The dissertation is based on a research
project I started over 10 years ago
and from fieldwork I did five to six
years ago.
This is not an overview of that work.
This is a sliver of regret.
So when I started, there was no Islamic
State of Iraq and the Levant.
It literally arose around me
as the people I was focusing on were
becoming less and less relevant.
People like the Muslim Brotherhood,
al-Qaida and even Orthodox Salafis,
the so-called Wahabis were becoming
less and less significant in everyday
political life.
Also becoming less relevant was the
leading Western modes of analyzing
Islamic radicalism, the real politic
political economy, people, the fancy
deconstructionist, postmodern discourse,
analysis, people, they were all becoming
less significant in everyday political
dialog.
The academics are doing well in their
respective departments, but they're
irrelevant for the public at large.
I argue here today that the
introduction of new technologies with a
particular political moment produces
cultural orientations that will drive
future conflicts.
The Islamic State is or
now almost was a Twitter
state. Supporters for it started in the
Internet, made alliances with unlikely
bedfellows, former Baathists, disgruntled
jihadists, moderate rebels and eventually
took the mantle from traditional
radical Islamic groups like al-Qaida.
There was no similar coup in the
intellectual analysis of the shift.
The dominant intellectual paradigm that
explained the conflict between Islam and
the West was most properly phrased by
Harvard Professor Samuel Huntington as
the clash of civilizations,
all analyzes of the conflict are
basically either the clash or
reactions against the clash.
The Clash is a geopolitical thesis that
integrates long, sweeping historical
developments with cultural stereotypes
to explain current political conflicts.
This is actually an identical style of
analysis that Osama bin Laden uses in his
own view of the world.
The basic idea is that the Islamic world
and some understanding or definition of
a modern liberal and to be explicit
Judeo-Christian, mostly European world
has been in conflict for a really long
time.
These two worlds share an inevitable
collision course for
Huntington. The future of war is not a
conflict between a clearly defined nation
states.
It's a war between cultures.
Huntington is one of the central figures
of the neoconservative movement, and his
argument is today the standard classical
theory of international relations taught
in colleges and universities across the
world. And let's face it, it's
racist.
And if it's not racist, it's at least
bigoted.
Actually, my internal conflict with my
own sees that thesis has to do with these
two terms, people who work
on political linguistics are now debating
these terms. After the last election,
you see the history of racism,
particularly like here in Germany and the
United States, were devastating for both
countries.
The American Civil War in World War Two
are the bloodiest conflicts in human
history.
And of course, these wars were not
primarily about liberating black slaves
or saving Jews from the Holocaust.
But in the aftermath of those wars, the
take home lesson was that these people
should be treated equally and we need to
think about the role of bias against
certain kinds of people.
It took over 100 years after the Civil
War for a black man to be president of
the United States got there after an
intense internal discussion about
discrimination and civil rights
and about at the end of the day,
appropriate cultural representation and
public conduct.
Of course, the last election really put
in perspective how far the US really went
in terms of social progress.
But for today's talk, I want to
talk about blackface, the painting black
of a usually white person's face.
You might not know the image on the left,
but it's the most famous example of
blackface. It's Al Jolson in the
1927 film The Jazz Singer.
It was the first feature length film
that had synchronized sound, meaning
you can now hear what the actor says
instead of having text on placards like
you did in the silent film era.
Actually, they decided to keep title
cards for the narrative and use
synchronized sound for the songs, making
this also the first musical film.
At the time, it was one of the most
technically difficult movies to screen
people when people want to talk about
the relationship between technological
evolution and its relationship to social
progress.
You can't do much better than the jazz
singer.
As an example, the Mac,
the main character himself, goes through
a social transformation of sorts via
a placard when we're told that the
protagonist's name was Jackie
Rabinowitz, the son of a Jewish cantor,
the person who leads the Jewish
congregation in prayer after
a conflict with his father for performing
jazz music in a Biergarten,
Jackie Rabinowitz changes his name to
Jack Robin and starts a successful career
as a jazz singer.
So it's a Jewish person who integrates
into American society but misrepresents
himself as a black person on stage.
This is the first major American talking
film.
No, this is 1927.
Over the course of the 20th century, the
roles of Jews in Europe and American
society becomes a huge source of anxiety,
contention and point of distinction.
American racism dealt with the legacy of
slavery and the forced immigration of
people from Africa and the Caribbean.
European racism, particularly after World
War Two, has to deal with the self
identifying a notorious choice ethnic
community, the Jews who have been in
Europe for hundreds of years.
Just to put this in perspective, Jews
were in Europe before the Hungarians were
in Hungary.
There were Jews in Croatia before there
were Croatians.
This is, of course, has to do with
Christianity's relationship to Judaism,
the recognition that there is both a
continuity and break with
the teachings of Judaism, particularly
when it came to the question of ethnic
determinism, i.e., you're born Jewish,
but you're baptized and then confirmed to
Christianity
on a cultural level.
It took the devastating experience of the
Holocaust to make Jewish identity normal,
even as the religious and ethnic
components became divorced or at
least uneasy.
And here I put Woody Allen as an example
of a highly conscious, self-referential
and intelligent Jewish cultural
expression that is non non-religious
but still very Jewish.
Racism is, in a sense, an act of
hostility against people of different
races. But bigotry is
close mindedness.
It's prejudice towards someone.
It's something that's kind of under the
radar.
It's really something
like that. Jewish comedians like Woody
Allen, but also David Letterman.
Mel Brooks really paved the way
for cultural understandings of Jewish
difference. And I really like the Billy
Crystal quote.
I'm not a Jew.
I'm Jewish.
The Muslim example is a little trickier
to untangle because it's playing itself
out. Now, on the one hand, if we
follow Huntington's clash of
civilizations, the Muslims have always
been at war with Christians and Jews
since they came after both religions.
The purpose of Muhammad's message is the
ultimate annihilation of Judaism and
Christianity.
Whatever Western majority we have after
World War Two, it's just a relatively
peaceful bubble and a massive boiling
cauldron of conflict.
The Cold War is just a blip, a little
misunderstanding in the history of human
political thought.
And, of course, Huntington's intellectual
buddy Francis Fukuyama, around the same
time also declared the end of history
where neo liberal capitalism has forever
defeated communism and socialism
and this vision of the world.
There are absolute winners and losers
that there is an end game.
I disagree, and I think people
need to look at racism against Arabs and
bigotry against Muslims as a development
of modern attitudes towards other people
who are obviously different.
With the legacy of black Americans and
European Jews playing it sets itself
out in the discussion of Muslims.
There is a race and religion component,
one you can't transcend.
I can't stop being Arab, but on the
other, your declared religion.
In a modern constitutional democracy, you
have the right to worship any way you see
fit here.
I want to point to the work of Aziz
Ansari, who recently is taking
the lead on how appropriate
representation of Muslim Americans should
take place.
And he does kind of a moderate approach.
I'm going to go a step further than Aziz
and say that the way Arabs and Muslims
have been represented in film and TV
shows and in video games will one day in
the future be seen in the same
way that we see blackface today
or when we see anti-Semitic cartoons,
we're just going to have this kind of
revulsion.
Actually, if that is not the case,
then the clash between Muslims in the
West would still be ongoing and that
there is no final showdown, no
winners or losers, a state of perpetual
war.
As I told you, I'm eternally conflicted
about this. So
it's a world where postmodern parody,
like Team America, World Police,
actually played itself out in
reality and did not work.
Anyway, now let's
get to the video games
with.
With this kind of audience, I'm actually
kind of glad that I don't have to do too
much explaining about what a first person
shooter is.
When I was a teen growing up in the 90s,
these were called first person shoot them
ups. So it was even more explicit.
The basic idea is that you experience a
game from the point of view of the main
character in an immersive, three
dimensional environment represented two
dimensionally.
This is kind of like the technique,
technical holy grail of gaming for many
for many years.
In the same way that sound was for a
silent film to make the game as realistic
or immersive as possible.
And it's basically the framework that was
adopted for virtual reality and probably
future forms of media consumption.
Um, first person shooters
are surprisingly old.
Probably the first was Masroor.
This is the white strip to the
right and it's nineteen seventy three.
It was on a Xerox machine and the screen
was barely legible.
So this is actually a printout of a
screenshot.
And you can already see the main
characteristics of how like a 3D
planes are represented using 2D lines
to show perspective.
The object of the game was to go through
the maze to find the eyeball
your enemy, as it were.
And if you find him facing to the side,
you can shoot and kill him.
But if the eyeball is facing you, then
you're dead. So that's like a kill shot.
You're dead here.
Um, top center is
a spasm or a space
flight simulator. It was in nineteen
seventy four in the University of
Illinois and it was very much influenced
by Star Trek. That's the one in the top
center, unlike Mays.
Or you are not restricted by the rules of
gravity or moving on a single plane
because you are floating in space
and left that. We have the flight
simulator, air flight and
the US military starts using the
technology developed and in space
to simulate flying almost
immediately after it was developed to
create a fighter jet flight simulator.
The bottom one, we have the Bradley
trainer from the point of view of a tank
which was made by Atari under a special
contract with the US Army in nineteen
eighty one.
So the military application of what is
conceivably a game came early
in the life of first person shooters.
And I want to dwell a little bit about
the following question.
What is it about full immersion and
heightened depictions of reality that
lend itself to militarization
or even more generally to violence?
Because the first real killer app of
the first person shooter world was
incredibly violent.
This was something I played back in the
day, and I'm sure some of you did, too.
Wolfenstein 3D, which started off as
shareware and got a little more cleaned
up when it became public.
The basic story of Wolfenstein 3D is that
you play the role of William Black,
an American spy of Polish descent
who was trapped in a Nazi prison.
Your first mission is to get out of the
prison and Castle Wolfenstein
depicted 3D point of view,
you know, like the standard format we now
have.
And basically you get to shoot Nazis
as much as you want. And the second
episode, you thought a secret Nazi
project where they're making mutant
soldiers knights, Nazi
iconography is just like everywhere and
over the top.
And in the final episode entitled
Die If You Die, you get to
fight Adolf Hitler directly in a bunker
under the Reichstag.
OK, this is what it looks like when
mutant Hitler dies.
Spoiler alert. Spoiler alert there.
I'm sure a lot of you already know
this Godwin's Law, it's the rule in a
flame war if one side compares the other
side to Hitler. The debate is effectively
over Hitler.
In this world, view is the worst
possible, most evil representation of
another human being that is theoretically
possible.
How about the person you are talking to
on the Internet? They're never really as
bad as Hitler.
Wolfenstein is kind of operating on
Godwin's Law to legitimize its violence.
It's OK to kill Nazis and the
final big boss level you get to kill
Hitler. So it all builds up for a really
good cause.
But remember the
lab thing where they were making mutant
soldiers after the immense success
of Wolfenstein, the creators of software
make their second series, Dhume, where
you play an unnamed space Marine who
kills space demons.
I feel like the creative team must have
realized that the carnage of Wolfenstein
was still against humans, right?
Like even fictional or historical Nazis
are people too. Maybe
so. So there's a kind of limit to the
kind of carnage you can have.
And the Doom series introduced
networking multiplayer action.
So now you and your buddies can kill
space demons together or you can kill
each other or strangers on the Internet,
which shouldn't have to be a lot of fun.
What's important for the talk is that
Wolfenstein and Doom represent a break
in first person shooters, where games
grounded on reality and fantasy
start using technology in different ways.
Obviously, this has to do with how
creatives are managing the appropriate
representation of violence in these
games.
If you want to maximize GWAR, it seems
that like Final Fantasy is the way to go
and a particular kind of fantasy that
involves non-human space, demons, aliens,
whatever in public discourse.
When they talk about violence and
connection to video games, they're
usually talking about this overall genre
of games and not, say, Mario Kart.
The closer it comes to reality, the more
controversy it causes, the more it gives
us this kind of uneasy feeling.
Doom is also one of the first games
to be modded, modest
means modified where code of the game is
messed with to change gameplay,
characters, patterns, whatever extensive
modding is another feature of this genre
that doesn't exist and say role playing
games or puzzle games.
And want to guess who an early model of
doom was.
The United States Marine Corps.
In nineteen ninety six, the commandant of
the US Marines issued a directive, and
I'm quoting here from Wikipedia, to
develop the use of war games for
improving military thinking and
decision making exercises.
So they might add a version of doom to
to develop a simulation where you're part
of a four member marine fire team.
The game focused on mutual support,
protection of the automatic rifleman,
proper sequencing of attack, ammunition,
discipline and succession of command.
These are sort of basic marine
things that they need
to develop.
And the default like mission was the
destruction of an enemy bunker, again,
reviving the Hitler bunker scene,
although they also use other scenarios
such as hostage rescue in a foreign
embassy.
And this apparently started as an
internal thing, but they gave away the
mod for free as a kind of recruitment
tool and for troubleshooting.
This is something we'll discuss later.
After Doom, we're going straight to
Halo. We're skipping unreal quake and
Halflife.
If you know anything about gaming, let me
tell you, I just insulted a whole bunch
of people.
Actually, more or less,
I'm going to bookmark haloes cultural
content for later, kind of my conclusion
and just say for a moment that Halo is a
big surprise or an outlier
for many trends in the genre.
For instance, it made Microsoft a major
player in the videogame world.
You know, the Microsoft that makes
Microsoft Office.
Yeah.
Another thing, there is almost zero Gore.
The emphasis in Halo was gameplay
mechanics and multiuser networking.
It was smooth and somehow that smoothness
made killing your friends even more fun.
The single user game was actually pretty
good as well. It had a space opera scale
and feel to it, and it has and still
commands a massive fan base and is one of
the most successful products ever for
Microsoft.
For many people, this was the gateway
drug for other video games.
But if we go back to the split, let's go
back to the reality games.
Those that were based on historical
events and hear the call of duty line
becomes the dominant line,
but was actually a rip off of a series
called Medal of Honor that was developed
by the director, Steven Spielberg.
And like Wolfenstein 3D.
All these games use World War Two as a
backdrop.
Call of Duty had both European and Asia
Pacific theaters of the war.
These were very much adult games in terms
of storylines, look and feel.
If you know older men who play first
person, shoot them ups, then they usually
play these sort of games and they're very
much associated with your grandpa's first
person shooter.
Details like the correct kind of pistol
or rifle were meticulously represented.
So were historical battles.
The overall theme of these games is
patriotism.
The the stories in these
games are very much an homage to the
greatest generation.
And of course, you only get to play as a
soldier from one of the allies,
usually for the US military.
But you also in later games can be
British, French, Polish, even
Canadian, and
you'll get to play Russian, even
though that felt a little bit
transgressive.
But you never got to play a German
soldier or a Japanese soldier because
obviously these are the enemies
and not so.
Ironically, the series is popular
in Japan. And I'm really curious what
gamers are thinking when you're like
effectively shooting against a digital
representation of your grandparents.
It's like uneasy.
And these games were comparably
only moderately successful to their
next iteration, Call of Duty, Modern
Warfare.
These games follow the realism patriotism
formula, except instead of doing World
War Two, they did it for current
conflicts.
I'm going to be diplomatic right now and
say that the Middle East is featured
prominently in these games.
But I also want to say that over 250
million copies of the series has
been sold.
You heard right. That's a quarter billion
in factor during that. Most people in the
developing world use pirated games.
So these numbers aren't even included.
And you can play up to four people
simultaneously using one copy.
The genre itself lends itself to
multiuser play.
It might be a conservative estimate that
in a world of seven billion, like half a
billion to a billion, people have
probably played Call of Duty.
There are other games that show current
conflicts like Counterstrike, Rainbow,
six battlefield.
But in terms of influence and social
impact, very little in terms
of media compares anymore to call duty,
even Hollywood,
because unlike a Hollywood movie, you
can't be passive while playing a first
person shooter.
Not when you're immersed in the middle of
a firefight in Iraq using virtual
replications of actual weapons you could
conceivably be using in real life
or play capture the flag in the streets
of Paris and call an aerial support
with kind of a long,
a long way in the cultural conflict
spectrum from Nazis
or even a Jewish American musician
wearing blackface.
Now, you can be in a situation forced by
the game itself to shoot innocent
civilians in a Russian airport.
This actually got the game banned in
Russia and caused a whole lot of
controversy.
But blowing the shit up in a small Iraqi
town, that gets zero outrage.
That's just par for the course.
That is effectively the game.
And you know what?
As an Arab guy,
I really divided because I really like
playing these games. So
but the saving grace was that after
Modern Warfare two, you can play an Arab
soldier fighting against the Americans.
And I hope this doesn't get me on a no
fly list now.
I spent three years in graduate school
where all I wanted to do was kind of play
the conflict.
I was studying it, simulated those things
I knew very little about, like fire team
formations, why certain gun equipment
configurations work and really why
American soldiers use so much tech in the
battlefield.
It's because it's a really unfair
advantage.
I realize I'm not the only one who caught
on with this line of thinking in
it. In the field, a big criticism of
al-Qaida in Iraq was their inability to
change the realities in the battlefield.
They would rather blow up an American
tank to send a message than take that
tank and use the comms to realize where
the Americans were headed next.
You see, the technology itself doesn't
care who's using it.
And I also realize that the other side
has its advantages as well.
Some are defending their land and others
took crazy risks to get to the fight.
Sometimes a golden AK 47 and a suicide
vest is all you need to win a game.
You know, screw night vision or a fleet
of AC 130 is at your command.
War in this context is a highly
psychological game.
All you really need is the right tool for
the right objective.
But what does winning mean when you're
able to play again and again?
The weapon you choose says so much about
your personality.
You're willing to deal with the
inaccuracy of an AK for the satisfying
thumping recoil.
When you actually make a hit, you feel
the propulsion of the bullet in your hand
in those vibrating controllers as it
penetrates the target, you can
be a virtual representation of the kind
of warrior you want to be.
This is also a war of stereotypes, no
doubt filled with mostly angry young men
around the world playing out the clash of
civilizations scenario and replicated
in tabloids and cable news of an
intolerant Middle East with Powermat
dictators and zealot radicals.
Yeah, that's bin Laden holding two as
the first player.
Shoot him up with online multiplayer.
It's not just about being violent, it's
about picking sides.
There are modes when it's a free for all
or lonewolf, but they are nowhere as
popular as as the
team centric games.
And on a meta level, the fighting sides
know this.
They're this is more than a mod.
This is the US Army's main virtual
training and propaganda environment, a
game called America's Army.
And as you'd expect from the Army branch,
it's actually kind of on the dorky side.
This is the screen for planning a battle,
meticulous detail like Army usually does.
And of the Islamic radical Islamic
organizations, the one that had the most
developed video game infrastructure, as
it were, was Hezbollah.
The theme of the Special Forces series is
to protect Muslim lands from Israeli
invasion.
So along with Hamas, the only
organization with an official video
game. But note that
Hezbollah also makes like slingshots so,
you know, have the same kind of level.
I need to apologize.
I could not find a pic of little American
kids playing America's army.
I'm sure it's because parental controls
are really severe in the United States
and kids never get to play with these
sorts of games.
Hezbollah is also changing
who perceives the enemy it
perceives as the enemy as the battlefield
is changing in the video games.
Here, for instance, is a mod under
development that has Hezbollah fighting
ISIS in Iraq or Syria.
And even the name here is trying to be
insulting by saying that I should
mention, it's implying that ISIS is not a
real thing.
It's a bit of an Islamic kind of
theology.
The Mod, however, that first got my
attention, was called the call to Jihad.
There were a little jihad, which is a
play on call of duty.
And instead of modern warfare, it's
called torturing unbelievers.
I saw Salafi
I saw Salafi kids in Saudi play this
video game in the background when I was
doing my fieldwork. And
what was really interesting, like just
around the corner of my eye because I
really couldn't be paying attention to
them, was how much attention was paid to
changing the narrative.
But all the pieces of the game were
already there.
And I really wanted to bring one of
these games here. But hacking consoles is
actually very technically difficult.
And when I got to the point where I could
buy a hacked Xbox that could run the
game, I was told that the game server
is in Syria and it's been
down for a month. So if I bought it, I
have to wait until it's online.
And it's actually I also talk to contacts
in the intelligence community about it.
And they all advised me to stay away
because there's currently an investigation
about who set up the game servers
because it was possibly used by the
Tsarnaev brothers before the Boston
Marathon bombing.
And from the reactions I got and the
people I talked to.
I personally read on the situations that
someone's making a lot of money
investigating something that's probably
irrelevant.
I'm going to make a racial generality
in the sense that I have no empirical
data, but I'm going to say what will
sound largely true.
The relationship between violence and
masculinity is very much
racially defined within the context of US
and Western culture and effectively
the creators of these games.
And let me abstract a little bit
about representation of race and
violence.
For instance, like when a black or Latino
man commits violence is for what I term
as hedonistic goals.
They want to be the bigger drug dealer,
bigger pimp, the bigger gangster.
The point is that they commit a violent
act in order to enjoy the spoils of that
violence, hidden mystically within
the culture, within the political network
or system of the United State.
When Muslim men commit violence, it's
political violence.
Muslim men commit violent acts of
terrorism for world domination, the rise
of the caliphate to smite Kafar and
unbelievers.
On the other hand, white men commit
violence for all sorts of reasons, from
being serial killers to advance in the
corporate ladder to getting life
insurance from their dead spouse.
When violence seems over the top, they're
always labeled as insane.
So like the Columbine shootings or James
Holmes in The Dark Knight Aurora
shootings.
But this is also a kind of violence which
is allowed when white men are saving the
world. For instance, soldiers in Iraq
or Jack Bauer in the streets of
Washington, D.C.
here we have a kind of a messiah complex.
When white men are committing violence,
they are putting their lives on the line.
And furthermore, women and children
are objects to be saved.
It's righteous violence in a sense.
It extends all the way back to the
American war of independence or perhaps
even Christianity when
it was interpreted in Europe, in the
Middle Ages.
Within this matrix.
We need to think about how long term
persistent efforts affects perception.
The interface between an operator and the
drone is now a similar crime of a video
game and not vice versa.
Drone operators were recruited from the
gamer community, and it was revealed by
Michael Haas and other former drone
pilots about
water. The Navy's top commander publicly
expressed that a big part of the problem
was civilian casualties.
And drone attacks isn't necessarily pilot
error.
It's just that the pilots were used to
shooting targets that look and walk a
certain way due to video games.
He compared it to canine units or
military dogs, like attacking someone
by mistake.
So every Arab or Muslim looking male
now looks like a threat.
I think the concept of military
aged male as being a valid target is
rife with sexism and bias
towards a particular appearance.
You can now shoot a drone missile
through a moving car window, a target
like literally that big.
But that doesn't make me feel safe.
You know, it's like, um,
besides the knee jerk accidental
killings, I think it's interesting to
note that the first American citizen to
be killed in the official limelight
without trial since the American Civil
War was Anwar al-Awlaki, along
with his teenage son, in a separate
attack in Yemen.
Obama was president and directly
authorized the order.
Now this guy lives on and YouTube is the
primary ideological imam of the Islamic
State.
You may not be able to respond in this
game, but the Internet never forgets.
Even Halo, the space opera fantasy
that happens hundreds of years in the
future, the enemy are depicted as
theocratic religious zealots known
as the Covenant, who are willing to risk
their lives for what they believe in.
The humans are the hyper rational beings
and their defenders are cybernetic
beings.
It's literally tech versus religion.
We today live in democracies where free
speech is largely protected, except in
Germany, where anti-Semitic speech is
prohibited for obvious reasons, society
self regulates on a cultural dimension
when it realizes in a large enough scale
how devastating racism and bias can be.
As someone who enjoyed these games, a
solution I can think of is that there is
no reason why these settings of these
games can be anywhere imagined
in a multiplayer game.
The map you play by default is a virtual
representation of your current location.
When you play someone else, you take
turns attacking each other in their own
neighborhoods.
There's already stuff in this direction.
But if you keep thinking of the Middle
East as a war zone, it will remain a war
zone if you keep thinking of Arabs as
terrorists.
Well, I think the outcome is obvious.
One model, one model for ethical gameplay
I've encountered is the small indie game,
This War of Mine, which was based on the
1994 ninety siege
of Sarajevo.
Here you play a group of squatters who
are basically fighting to survive in the
midst of a war zone.
Most of the time you're figuring out
logistics like firewood, gas, food.
I think if you want to make a realistic
video games, you might as well go all the
way to show the suffering.
Why not show war from the point of view
of victims?
I think these games would be really
exciting as someone who's been in the
middle of a bombing campaign.
Nothing gets your adrenaline going,
but I hope you guys never have to
experience this in real life.
And thank you very much.