The Blackwater Video Game Shoots Blanks As Corporate Propaganda

There's no way you can expect Blackwater to be a good game. 10 minutes with it reveals that impossibility. From the completely unintuitive controls, the wooden, stiff animation and the below-average graphics and voicework don't take long to deflate any expectations of quality.

But I had different expectations.

The name Blackwater is nearly synonymous with the phenomenon of the private military company. The category is comprised of businesses who provide armed security and tactical training for civilian and government clients. Because they're private, PMCs don't fall under the same level of oversight as soldier and commanders in the Army, Air Force or Navy. Serious allegations of misconduct dogged Blackwater, which was founded by a former Navy SEAL and served as one of the biggest private contractors during the U.S.'s military engagements in Iraq. The most egregious trepass came in 2007, when an alleged Blackwater operation in Baghdad claimed the lives of non-combatant civilians. Congressional inquiries followed and all the negative attention led to a split of what was once known as Blackwater with CEO Erik Prince rebranding the armed service component as xE Services and another division retaining the Blackwater brand and logo to turn it into a more consumer-facing entity. Or, as their website puts it: "Now Blackwater is a global brand that stands for everything Blackwater stood for: excellence, reliability and unfailing commitment to duty and service."

So, I think you can only approach the Blackwater game as a political document. It couldn't have been approved with the PMC's say-so, so it's got to serve as an artifact to buttress the myth that Blackwater uses to sell its services. "See, we're out there backing up the boys in uniform, right there on the front lines with them," the game essentially needs to say, "Forget about all those allegations and investigation. We're the good guys."

You control-one at a time-a four-man squad designated Agile-22 who are operating in the fictional city of Harri in the made-up country of Libonia. You switch into the roles of each guy (Devin, Baird, Smash and Eddi, or as I grew to call him, Indiscriminate "We're Diverse!" Brown Guy) at different points of the map. Each wields a different weapon: sniper rifle, shotgun, assault rifle.Your contact is a turbaned man (which makes me wonder if he's a Sikh) with a black female assitant. It's clearly set in the Middle East, but no specificity is given to the locale. The first mission you play through is escorting an aid convoy. (Of course it is!)

Tons of military lingo gets thrown around but without the circumstances or context to make it intelligible or even believable. Add to that really bad, cookie-cutter banter like, "I'm riding shotgun WITH a shotgun. I'm not sure it gets any more quality than that." When you get attacked by by the fictional country's unnamed militia in of Limbano, you're also prompted to take out their propaganda to earn points.

A mission to rescue a relief worker has one of the operators, uttering the line "That's why they hired the best," met with a hearty "Hoo-rah!" Later on, you disobey orders to save a convoy. "No one gets left behind!" When you get the poor UN aid worker, a Blackwater op asks, "Where's your security?" The reply? "Gone. Everyone's gone. There was gunfire and they fled," followed by this bit of chest-thumping: "Well, you get what you pay for." Similar bits of dialogue follow, like, "I guess they know we're not hear to sing for the troops." Yeah, OK, so the Limbani bad guys are stepping up their aggression because Blackwater's got boots on the ground? Really?

There's a big existential question running through today's war video games set in the present day: What does it mean to create an entertainment based on actual armed conflicts happening around the world? This phenomenon isn't new. Captain America punched out Hitler on the cover of the Marvel superhero's first issue during World War II, after all. But, as video games mature and earn more and more money each year, it's worth looking at how much the reflection of war resembles what's actually going on.

So, with a Russian ultra-nationalist supervillain, Modern Warfare 3 divorces itself from any kind of connection to reality, even if it painstakingly recreates weapons and technology that soldiers use in the field. Battlefield 3 plays it a little murkier, taking place in the Iran/Iraq border in the sphere of influence of recent American military engagement with antagonists who could be mistaken with the extremists troops in the area are battling. But, it's the memory of EA's controversy with Medal of honour that had me most excited for what Blackwater could be. You might remember the hot water that the FPS landed into by having the Taliban be a playable faction in Medal of Honor's online modes. After a brief holdout and criticism from American and British military officials, the game's bad guys got their name changed to the Opposing Force, a standard battlefield term. But everyone knew who they were supposed to be.

Flying in under the radar and releasing in the same window as Battlefield 3, Blackwater could've taken all the risks and named all the unnameables that Medal of Honor, Battlefield 3 and the Call of Duty games can't. The names of al Qaeda operatives and Taliban leaders show up on the news everyday; why shouldn't a PMC video game take the fight to them? Especially one that's a favoured vendor for the U.S. governement. We know that they've been on the front lines, so take us there, 505 Games.

This is a game that should be the interactive equivalent to Rambo. That movie captured the raging revenge fantasy boiling around in the id of 1980s America. Old wars and new ones alike—Vietnam and Desert Storm, to be specific—got revisited with an ultra-violent clarity of purpose. But, by comparison, Blackwater doesn't have the horsepower to pull off that level of spectacle.

Sadly, the Blackwater game isn't good ol' get-the-jingoism-boiling propaganda. The bad guys are cardboard, the protagonists' aggression is limp and the convictions of the Agile-22 squad don't seem to carry any sort of hot-blooded righteousness. The guys you play as feel like they're just showing up for the paycheck. And, let's face it: they are. Ultimately, this Xbox 360 game is just another cash-in.

Okay, there's no orgiastic spray of bullets. Maybe the reason for not doing that is to portray Blackwater as a precise, surgical strike organisation. If so, that aim is thrown off by the poor gameplay and presentation. The game's weird shooting-gallery design, like an FPS with motion controls shoved up its butt. When played with Kinect, you're supposed to pivot your body in and out of cover, with various gestures to reload, aim and shoot. The gestural controls work rather inconsistently and the standard Kinect health prompt gets tweaked. "If you feel tired, take a break. Blackwater needs you full rested for the next mission." However, you never really feel like a warrior born.

Furthermore, the game drops the ball on both details and tone. U.S or other Allied troops are nowhere to be found and the U.N. isn't competent enough to provide aid of fend off bad guys. There's no clever tactics or especially steely resolve on display, so you're not sold on the idea that Blackwater is any kind of elite anything. Overall, the cheerleading it provides its corporate namesake is weak and indirect. The in-game feat you get the most points for—"+100 Enemy Fled"—is supposed to make players believe in the might of the Blackwater brand.

Maybe the game can't be a repudiation of the allegations of wrongdoing leveled at Blackwater. But, worse yet is how a diluted fictional backdrop, poor playablility and a soggy sense of threat combine into a failure at making you believe the Blackwater operator is heroic or skilled.


Comments

    I have a huge problem with this game. Blackwater were used by the US because they weren't subject to oversight. They did commit a number of acts that would be consider war crimes if they were part of the regular army.

    Buying this game hands money to some pretty despicable people. I'm glad its rubbish.

      Ugh, I have to -sell- this vile game where I work. It might become lost in my backroom...

    Really interesting article.

    Like Thom I have a problem with the branding. Even if it's not connected to the PMC, celebrating or hyping the achievements strikes me as really nasty.

    At the very least it's glorifying mercenaries with no oversight.

    Mercenaries have always been glorified in fiction, the difference is that there was always a disconnect because they were usually cut of the "Chaotic Neutral" (eurgh) cloth, played by their own rules, but ultimately wound up helping the protagonist.

    Outright glorifying a real PMC is tasteless. Especially one as questionable as Blackwater, with their proven history of war crimes.

      Well, many real militaries have been implicated in some monstrous acts of evil. Is it equally tasteless to glorify them?

      I'd argue it is.

      Blackwater clearly deserve to be treated skeptically, I agree with you. But some PMC's have done good things, just as some real-life militaries have. Is it automatically tasteless to glorify a private entity for doing something good? After all, militaries have been on the receiving end of monumental levels of glorification for the good they have done.

    This game is an advertisement. Surprise!

    That said, it isn't ENTIRELY 'divorced from reality' for MW3 to have hardline Russian nationalist supervillains. Hardline Russian nationalism clearly exists.

    I thought a disappointing thing about the article is that it clearly is much more skeptical about PMCs than the military (or the wars in the Middle East) itself. With quotes like "Sadly, the Blackwater game isn’t good ol’ get-the-jingoism-boiling propaganda" I fail to draw any other conclusion. Jingoist propaganda is not a good thing and I don't find it particularly entertaining. "Unquestioning glorification of the current wars in Afghanistan/Iraq is TOTALLY OKAY as long as no privately-owned entities are involved" isn't exactly advanced discourse on either foreign policy or the military-industrial-congressional-contractor complex.

    Blackwater have obviously been involved in some terrible things, but they weren't responsible for launching the wars. Skepticism about ANY business so dependent upon the State's largesse is a healthy thing, but degenerates into shallowness when it is divorced from skepticism about the State itself.

Join the discussion!