Thanks to Gamespot (found via Terra Nova) for their article on the Asymmetric Warfare Environment (AWE), the military training tool built by virtual world company There. According to the article, " the massively multiplayer simulation will be used by military personnel to train troops in urban situations before they are airlifted to a battle zone."

Project director Dr. Michael Macedonia describes some of the goals of the game:

I'm afraid I feel compelled to point out some of the disturbing inconsistencies in Macedonia's depiction of the game. I've picked three bones to pick here.

(1) Explaining the inspiration of AWE, he says,

I hate to break the news to Dr. Macedonia, but Homer didn't write anything down. In fact, the Homeric epic remains the most common example of the oral tradition. The Homeric epics were not written down until many centuries later, primarily because writing had not yet been developed to do much more than record how many sheep one person owed another. A center of political power, with an agenda to disseminate and maintain, is a prerequisite to the kind of "relaying" Macedonia refers to. Is this not something they teach at West Point?

Moreover, the highly uncertain relationship between myth and history in the story of the Trojan war and (duh?) the incredible travails of Odysseus exemplifies the fundamental differences between oral epic and modern warfare: the former consciously participates in numerous, more open cultural registers (history, myth, theater, performance, tradition) while the latter participates in fewer, more closed cultural registers (democracy, empire, capitalism, etc.).

Perhaps AWE could change that, but for my part, I can only read Macedonia's blatant misunderstanding of the primary source of inspiration for his project as a terrifying example of the delusion of the American military.

(2) Asked if one wouldn't "have to simulate the true fear or discomfort a soldier would face and then test them?" in a military game, Macedonia responds,

Macedonia appears to deny a major kind of responsibility in representations of military action. Furthermore, this statement seems to directly contradict the phenomenon described in a recent Salon article (also discussed here on WCG), which convincingly shows that American youths' understanding of the US Army are materially changed by their experiences with games like America's Army.

(3) Speaking about the differences between military and other kinds of games, Macedonia argues,

Is Macedonia claiming that the propagation of military aggression is the only valid or "not lame" application of "purposeful games?" Could this be any more offensive?