USA in Pieces: the Perspective of Games

Having had to have my computer restored back to basics last week as a result of the viral attack, once I got it back I decided to take the opportunity to install different games on it. Like many people I am prone to shopping as a counteraction to upset or stress. Whereas women are purportedly supposed to go shopping, I go out and buy cheap computer games. This means I always have more than I can play at any one time and sometimes they sit unwrapped on my shelf and become incompatible with my current computer. I am also awaiting the arrival of 'Empires Total War' the latest in the Total War series which I have been playing since 'Shogun Total War' came out in 1999. I sometimes have issue with historical accuracy, but this has been an excellent series of games covering the Middle Ages and the start and end of the Roman Empire. There are loads of free fan-created downloads out there too if you tire of the vanilla version of the games. Anyway, 'Empires' is now due in March 2009 and features conflicts of the late 18th and early 19th century. For the first time in the Total War series you can actually fight naval battles ship-to-ship; they seem to have borrowed the only good part of 'Imperial Glory' (2005) an earlier attempt at Napoleonic wargaming for the PC with terrible land battles but good sea battling.

The games I have loaded up this time round include 'Faces of War' (2006) a squad-based battle game set in the Second World War, starting in Summer 1944. You can play as the Germans, Soviets and Anglo-Americans. Liking counter-factual I went for the former. Failing to blow-up the bridge at Nijmegen led to the war in Europe ending in January 1945 rather than May. I am now on the Battle of the Bulge, but facing 101st Airborne Division forces (made famous by the 'Band of Brothers' (2001) TV series) my squad keeps being eliminated the moment they get off the transport truck. Despite the AI (artificial intelligence) being vaunted on the box, the soldiers have none and run right up to the enemy and simply get shot to pieces. The sniper shoots someone then goes right to the corpse to check the soldier is dead. Very macho Americans without helmets or coats (despite the battle being in the midst of the Belgian winter and a very cold one) keep charging the German positions basically immune to bullets. Again I rather feel that US pride has prevented a realistic game. I know the Germans will lose but they do not have to be suicidal. Interestingly the German troops were reckoned to be 20% more effective in battle than US opponents, something not replicated in this game.

Anyway, putting these games aside, brings me to the key focus for this posting. This was stimulated by the game 'Shattered Union' (2005) which I picked up for £4.99. It is a turn-based wargame available for different systems, but I am concentrating on the PC version. What interests me about it is how it portrays the USA. You get an idea from the toppled Statue of Liberty and damaged Golden Gate Bridge on the cover. It is set in 2009 when rather than Barack Obama becoming president we have David Jefferson Adams after a tie in the electoral college (memories of 2000 there) and a decision by the House of Representatives. He is incredibly unpopular and uses Bush's Homeland Security legislation to declare martial law. In 2012 all other presidential candidates are disqualified and Adams gets a second term. However, the detonating of a tactical nuclear device during inauguration kills Adams and most leading politicians. In 2013 California then Texas secede from the Union (as I have noted before they are the 7th and 10th wealthiest 'countries' in the world on their own anyway); the European Union invades the DC district and Russia annexes Alaska. The different factions that develop are interesting. Unfortunately I cannot find a decent map of them and may have to create one, but for now these are the ones:

Independent Commowealth of Hawaii - well, this does what it says on the label and does not really feature in the game. With continental USA in conflict, I suppose these islands lying 3500 Km (2200 miles) from San Francisco would have to make their own way in the world, presumably making agreements with other island nations of the Pacific.

California Commonwealth - California, Nevada, Arizona and Utah. This is possibly the most likely breakaway in reality though perhaps not that large; also trying to reconcile the Mormons of Utah with the gambling state of Nevada might be a challenge for the President of California.

Pacifica - Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and Colorado. In reality I think this would be two states as the liberal Washington and Oregon are at odds with the four far more right-wing other states. However, the populations of these are pretty low and might be dominated by the coastal states.

Great Plains Federation - Minnesota, Ohio, Michigan, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, North Dakota, South Dakota Missouri, Wisconsin, Kansas and Nebraska. This is the unit I would envisage Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and Colorado adhering to, but for gameplay reasons I imagine they are apart. I also would expect a difference in this bloc between Ohio, Michigan, Illinois and Indiana and the others, because they have far more of an urban and industrial focus than the other primarily rural states.

The Confederacy - Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida. This is the bulk of the CSA from 1861-5, though of course without Texas. In the game this is a surprisingly progressive bloc, but given what we know about the enduring racial tensions in these states and the heavy emphasis on robust Christianity, I think in reality we would see a 21st century version of the CSA for real.

The Republic of Texas - Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, parts of Arkansas and Missouri. This seems to be a feasible state and possibly Texas would seek secession, it is in a far better position these days than in the 1840s. Its wealth and political outlook might attract some of the southern parts of the Great Plains Federation.

New England Alliance - Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut and parts of Ohio. This is the most densely populated bloc and I would envisage not only all of Ohio but the industrial states of the Mid-West adhering to this. This kind of bloc is not likely to happen these days but is the kind of set-up that may have appeared if French or even Dutch control in North America had persisted longer.

The European Union Occupation Zone - Maryland, Delaware, West Virginia parts of Virginia, Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Well, one can only speculate on why the EU would feel it necessary to invade the USA and effectively create a kind of capital territory, though if they did, this area seems a sensible one.

Having looked at the 'what if?' of this game I was interested in other potential ones. Another game, not available for the PC but on consoles is 'Fracture' (2008). It has been panned for its poor audio and gameplay, but I am interested in the vision of the USA it sees. It is set in 2161 and envisages as USA split both physically and politically. Global warming has led to the rise in sea levels and a crack North-South running across the country (though I am not certain, this seems to come from the level of the Great Lakes rising and flowing South). Given flash flooding in the region, despite the shrinking of the lakes due to over-use, this seems quite feasible. In prehistoric times the USA had a curved sea stretching across the plains down to what is not the Gulf of Mexico. Anyway, the East-West split with the Atlantic side in co-ordination with the European Union emphasising new technologies especially cybernetics whereas the Pacific side in co-ordination with Japan-China are working on developments with genetic engineering. The Atlantic side has weaponry which can manipulate the landscape. Overall it sounds like an interesting cyberpunk set-up but clearly is simply there to provide a US civil war of a different kind. A novel first would have been interesting.

Focusing on the fragmentation of the USA has not only been the work of game designers but of political commentators. There is some discussion of the November 2008 claims by the Russian Professor Igor Panarin at: http://windowoneurasia.blogspot.com/2007/08/window-on-eurasia-moscow-paper-outlines.html This blog refers back to 1991 when Russians predicted a fragmentation of the USA along the lines of what happened to the USSR. However, these neglected the fact that parts of the USSR had only been joined on late (the Baltic States in 1940) and had a far greater ethnic diversity across them but greater homogenity within states (I recognise many have numerous ethnic minorities), e.g. Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Turkistan, Tadjikistan and Kirghizistan; some states had high Muslim populations. Parts of Central Asia were only gained in the 1870s-90s, after the American Civil War had ended. The population of the USSR was close to that of the USA (around 225 million) but it covered 22.4 million square kilometres compared to the USA's 9.2 million square kilometres. In contrast to the USSR, the USA, for all of its rising Hispanic population, tends to have a greater mixing of ethnic groups and Christianity and still English are uniting factors, though the rise of Spanish challenges this. Thus, the USA has more 'glue' than the USSR had. However, these days it might be correct to consider that economic factors would be the greatest contributors to secession.

I have colour-coded it to make it a bit easier to see the different states envisaged. The key is as follows:

1 - California Republic 2 - Mormon state of Utah 3 - New Mexico 4 - Indian Territories5 - Texas Republic 6 - Louisiana 7 - Florida 8 - The Confederation of the Southern States9 - South Canada 10 - Upper Michigan 11 - Maine 12 - New Hampshire 13 - Vermont14 - New England 15 - Free City of New York 16 - New Italy 17 - New Africa
18 - United States 19 - The Midwest Federation

Alaska and Hawaii not shown here are also envisaged to gain independence. Panarin also envisaged terrorist activity provoking a division. However, all of these commentators forget that such activity tends to bind states together. It is wealth in some areas and poverty in others which leads to tension, for example Yugoslavia and Italy. As with other scenarios California and Texas are seen as leaving first. A Mormon state of Utah is another easy one. Though as with 'Fracture', the ethnic tensions lead to splits, for example, with the area seen as Latino South of California leaving the rest of the state. Mexico would apparently expand North into Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona and Nevada. The revived Confederacy would apparently lead to blacks fleeing to southern Michigan which would become 'New Africa' and people from Italian backgrounds would lead to New Jersey becoming New Italy. Washington DC would only be able to assert power over some neighbouring states, the rump United States. There is no explanation why the Greater Lousiana would not adhere to this or the Mid-West Federation or why there is so much fragmentation in the North-East. If Upper Michigan would be close to Canada in political terms, why not New Hampshire, Vermont and Maine? Whilst I could see Washington and Oregon becoming part of Canada, again Idaho, Montana, etc. are different in outlook and their right-wing attitudes would jar with Canadian liberalism especially on guns. As for New York City becoming independent that is just like 'Escape from New York' (1981) and that implies a widespread meltdown. I think whilst the peripheral states California, Texas, Utah and possibly Washington, Oregon and the North of New England might go the bulk of Mid-West and South-West America would stay together. There are racial tensions in the USA but no state has yet a sufficiently homogenous ethnicity to allow a clear association with the state. Similarly the mass migration to southern Michigan is unlikely. Black migration has always been towards urban areas and why would blacks not go to New York or Chicago or Los Angeles as in the past?

Panarin did also outline a simpler fragmentation into six parts - '... the Pacific coast, with its growing Chinese population; the South, with its Hispanics; Texas, where independence movements are on the rise; the Atlantic coast, with its distinct and separate mentality; five of the poorer central states with their large Native American populations; and the northern states, where the influence from Canada is strong.'

The Americans always have a difficulty facing people not seeing the shape and size of the USA as it currently is as some kind of 'manifest destiny'. Look back at all the fuss over the Absolut vodka maps. Paul Goble's comments on Panarin at the link above begin to fall into this trap dismissing this as a misplaced sour grapes by the Russians upset at the loss of their empire. What he and others miss is that the rest of the world can see the fragmentations in US society along economic and ethnic grounds. They may not lead to the actual breaking away of states, but they have already led to the fragmentation within cities and states, something more akin to Neal Stephenson's 'The Diamond Age' (1995) with mini-states and nations to which people are affiliated represented in districts of different towns. It is interesting that these popular culture references about fragmenting USA look at this happening on a geographical basis but in fact the USA itself needs to consider the social fragmentation which is unlikely to be this tidy.

Get A Life! A Second Life?

This posting is looking at Second Life which is a social network system, launched in 2003, that allows users to interact with each other via avatars (i.e. animated three-dimensional representation of themselves) which can be as realistic or fantastical as they like. The space in which they opeate are 'islands' that people and companies and other organisations (the Chinese government famously has recently bought a very large island) and put in structures, buildings, shops and so on. By paying in real money, people have currency within the environment. See: http://secondlife.com/ Second Life now has 13 million members predominantly from the Western countries. There are other less popular ones appearing and so are more game orientated (most controversially the Miss Bimbo one recently launched which encourages young females (from aged 9 upwards) to have an avatar who becomes a model and buys expensive fashions and has cosmetic surgery, etc, in their own words in an effort to: 'Become the most famous and beautiful bimbo in the world..': www.missbimbo.com It is currently being investigated by Ofcom the British communications watchdog see: technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article3628914.ece ). Sorry, I have got on to the controversial aspects already before filling out the background. Second Life is not a game; its activities are created by the users moving around and interacting with each other and the devices and buildings there. Other rival worlds include: IMVU, There, Active Worlds, Kaneva and the explicitly sexually-orientated Red Light Center.

There seem now to be regular presentations how getting into Second Life is an essential part of marketing a company and you see regular reports that IBM and Gap and many others are setting up their own spaces in the system and effectively marketing is what the Chinese government is doing with its own island. People can walk their avatars into your store or whatever and see about your products, your company identity, etc. However, as someone at a presentation said 'why would you want to buy a Gap teeshirt when elsewhere in Second Life you can be a panda'. All over the internet are people creating outfits and bodies for avatars by the hundreds. Searching for real clothing you constantly hit websites promoting virtual clothing for avatars. For other similar, more game orientated sites such as World of Warcraft which I have mentioned before: www.worldofwarcraft.com/ people actually sell products that can be used in the game via the eBay online auctioning site as if they were real items not just some computer coding. So to some extent real world companies are having to compete with the more fantastical items that you can buy to use in this other world.

Right, well this is all well and good, part of our modern society and the step on from more mundane social interaction sites such as Facebook and MySpace. There of course are the usual hazards of online interaction in that 'online no-one knows you're a dog' to quote Peter Steiner from 1993. The avatars which do not even have to be human often do not reflect the individual operating them. This can be liberating as it allows people to play out very different roles, in a 'safe' environment, for example as different genders (or even species) and interact in that way. In Second Life you can be as beautiful and as trendy as you like and never age. Those playing against type might find out useful things about themselves online, notably if they are concerned about coming out as gay/lesbian they can use this as a first step to interact with others on this basis. In addition, it soon becomes clear in any search of the internet that there is a lot of cybersex of all kinds going on and whilst this is 'safe' compared to physical sex in terms of risk of sexually-transmitted infections (STIs) and pregnancy, etc., it can have psychological effects. One interesting blog on that aspect is by Abulia Savant whose avatar over a period became more and more a sexually submissive character ultimately a sexual slave to other avatars, something she initially enjoyed but which has left her very concerned and discomforted. Her blog: http://www.abuliasavant.com/?p=207 shows that what goes on 'virtually' is not totally divorced what who we are in this world. Online a writer called Xah Lee has a tour of some of the more exotic elements of Second Life: http://xahlee.org/sl/index.html Note, some images are sexual, but most are anodyne. He shows also people whose avatars are dragons or humanoid animals, etc. which outlines how some people use it in the way similar to MUDs (Multi-User Dungeons) are used, though lacking the quests and so on of those.

To some extent the use of virtual worlds has long been predicted in fiction going back to the 1980s, especially cyberpunk writing which regular readers will know I enjoy. We have not reached the stage that those authors like William Gibson, Bruce Sterling and Neal Stephenson (interestingly I was once in a college library which had Stephenson's fiction works in its section on technology; he also created a steampunk/cyberpunk crossover in 'The Diamond Age' (1995)) envisaged, with us physically connecting to the computer and our whole consciousness fading into it, but there is nothing to say that will not come. We have virtual reality headsets and controllers that shudder to reflect action happening on screen. In addition people do become immersed, such as the 26-year old gamer known as Zhang (a Chinese surname) who died in a cybercafe in southern China in September 2007 after playing for three days solidly on Morrowind. Many of us having spent a long time at our computers will stand up to find we have a full bladder that we had not noticed because our minds were so taken away with what we were doing on screen, so maybe we do not need it even more immersive than it is. It does seem though we are moving gradually in the direction envisaged by the cyberpunk authors and possibly ultimately even further towards the

The other area of concern that I would bring up stems from this immersion and relates to my recent posting about my failed holiday and the 6-year old's withdrawal symptoms from being away from computer games just for a couple of days. This week I talked with three mothers one who has a 9-year old daughter and a 13-year old son, one with two sons: a 16-year old and an 18-year old and one mother with a 21-year old son. It was agreed that boys/men are much more likely to become seriously addicted to online facilities whether gaming or socialising; girls/women do participate but are more likely to mix it in with other activities. All the mothers said that online involvement had harmfully affected their sons' academic work. One was now moving to set up his access so it chucked him out after two hours. This was a lot easier in the days of dial-up connections (which I was surprised to find are still common in many parts of the USA even) than with the constant broadband flow. To some extent the 6-year old in my house is finding that no-one knows what he is talking about when he goes on and on about the games he has played at home, but I imagine that the reverse will be the case in 5-7 years time and as an adolescent if he lacks a virtual presence people will ignore his physical one. Schools need to work with pupils not only about the potential dangers of the people they meet online (and it does appear they have been quick to add this to the lessons on 'stranger danger' regarding people in parks, etc.) but also how to manage gaming/online socialising in the same way they address drugs and alcohol.

I deliberately used the title 'get a life!' because in the past that was what was shouted at geeks and nerds who were felt to be too obsessed with their hobbies and interests. Things may be beginning to be turned on their heads and people who are simply present in the physical world are going to be seen as the ones missing out. The online world is going to be 'better' because we can be who we want to be. I can be the 25-year old Goth lord with steampunk technology rather than the 40-year incompetent with an old PC, so which am I going to choose? On this point I read that this was the reason why the first movie in the the Matrix triology, i.e. 'The Matrix' (1999) was so much more preferred to 'The Matrix Reloaded' and 'The Matrix Revolutions' (also 2003) because in the first movie the characters much of the time striding around in cool, shiny costumes with big guns whereas in the latter two movies they spent more time in dreary, gloomy settings dressed in shabby clothes. In that context the bulk of us want to remain in the matrix rather than go outside and face the cold, hard real world. This is fine when we can physically load ourselves into a computer and become a stream of electrons. However, for now, we have to work on ways at how we and especially children of today and tomorrow balance the needs of our bodies, to have a job, to interact with physical humans in this boring, mundane, uncomfortable place and leave the other life for an occasional break not the dominant facet of our lives.

P.P. Well, following all of this discussion I decided to give it a go and I must say the results were disappointing. On Second Life I registered on the CyberGoth default as Rooksmoor Oberlander (you get a limited number of surnames and for UK citizens they all seem to be German or Polish surnames) and went in for orientation. It was like a basic point and click computer game. The key difficulty for me was that the graphics clearly clash with my computer as rather than the cool CyberGoth male all I got was what looked like rags hanging from a scarecrow and no feet. Other people either looked the same or as mis-shapen boxes. I talked to a few and then gave up as it is difficult to interact when you cannot see the people as people. I then tried Red Light Center, much more involved in downloading, but seemingly less developed when you get there and you cannot even do the most basic thing there without having to spend real world money. I suppose it is a commercial business and they seem more concerned to push contact websites so I found it difficult even to access the world, so I de-installed that one.

Clearly there are more challenges than I envisaged becoming virtual. No-one could explain my graphics problem on Second Life so it seems insoluble. My computer is only a couple of years old and capable of rendering the complex graphics of 'Medieval II Total War' with hundreds of people in it, far more detailed in image than on Second Life. Maybe my broadband is too slow to render the avatars properly.