Jim Joe and John

It's just a game right? No, it's a lifestyle.

Hundreds of thousands of people every year go out to their local Best Buys and Wal-Marts to buy the exact same gaming CD enclosed in the same mass produced packaging. They all put the CD into their computers and click "run", but perhaps this is when their experiences fork from the identical to the individual. Today's flight simulation games are ambiguous as to their target audience. Does one play them to see how much blood can be drawn or how many tanks can be blown up during a mission? Or, does one play to experience and respect the sacrifices and dedication of the military that defends that which is worth defending? When all else fails, is it for the experience playing at a level of detail that blurs the lines between gaming and reality? Only you can make that decision, because to each and every one of you there exists an inherently fundamental line between the real and the surreal. Some games disregard the line; others strive desperately to walk it or push it further. In particular, flight simulation games have emerged in recent years as the genre that makes realism fun. It merely depends on who "you" are and where your idea of “fun” lies in the spectrum of simulation gaming.
Taking into account the breadth of experiences and expectations towards flight simulation, we devised an experiment to see how people's passion and/or relation to a game's subject matter translate into their gaming experience. Air Combat simulation games in particular attract a certain die-hard fan base for seemingly unknown reasons. This genre of game seems to scare away the types of gamers who derive their fun from outlandishly hectic and intense gaming experiences such as trying to blow up futuristic laser tanks with a ridiculous gadget in the midst of an intergalactic space battle. Flying a flight simulation game can't possibly get your blood pumping like that all the time because of the inherent nature of flying. Over half of the typical flight mission is spent flying straight and level. The excitement starts, depending on one’s perception, as a little green dot appears on the radar screen to indicate an ingress enemy fighter. After a minute or two of flying in a straight line, one would see a little black dot appear out of a cloud and shoot a missile at it. Once the target is defeated, all that is left is to proceed to fly straight and level to the next objective.
The main question we aim to explore deals with what type of person it takes to break a sweat over that little green dot on the radar screen. Who finds this sort of ultra-realistic game riveting and why? To find the answers to these questions three people will be asked to play "Lock On", an air combat simulation game in a controlled environment; a random person who has no prior passion for flying or flight simulation games, a civilian who does harbor a passion for the aerospace world, and finally a cadet in MIT's Air Force ROTC detachment 365 who aspires to fly military aircraft as a career after school. Judging by their answers to some key questions as well as their reactions to the game and noting the level of realism that they select to play it at, we will be able to draw some conclusions that hopefully answer our fundamental questions about the ties between a game and its players.
Of course, this isn’t the first time the idea of simulation in media has been explored. “It is genetic miniaturization that is the dimension of simulation. The real is produced from miniaturized cells, matrices, and memory banks, models of control – and it can be reproduced an indefinite number of times from these.” Jean Baudrillard presents a despondent yet poignant view of simulation. He argues that simulation, though it strives to attain the highest level of realness, can never fully represent the real because it is based on a fixed model of behavior, as a result, can only have a limited number of outcomes, no matter its complexity. Unfortunately, our levels of simulation have advanced to a degree that we can foresee many possible outcomes previously unattainable. Letting our society use these simulations to model their real life counterparts essentially annihilates reality as we know it by leaving no room for the unintended or the imaginary . He describes it as being “No longer anything but operational, in fact, it is no longer the real, because no imaginary envelopes it anymore. It is a hyperreal, produced from a radiating synthesis of combinatory models in a hyperspace without atmosphere.”
In many ways, Baudrillard is correct in his description of the role that simulation plays in society. In many cases, our reactions have been reduced to a series of simulations with known outcomes. For example, the simulation of a terrorist attack has been outlined in every way, shape, and form. Through law enforcement, entertainment and government, a system of reactions to terrorist threats has been set up based on every known and anticipated instance of attack. This shouldn’t be a problem as long as every attack falls within our spectrum of knowledge. However, this method of reaction eliminates our ability to react to instances outside the realm of models and simulation. This is when our system could break down and potentially put people in danger. The same applies to flight simulation. Playing a flight simulator to the point of mastery won’t teach a person the feel of the flight stick under a high-speed bank or the glare of the sun off the wing. A pilot having trained only on simulation could potentially be crippled in reactions to unforeseen events, according to Baudrillard. However, Simulacra & Simulation was published in 1981. There was no way for Baudrillard to envision the magnitude in which computers have since grown in power.
Today, some simulations still use systems of models to output reactions, but these systems are so vast and complex, that empirically they have captured almost every known outcome or ramification. Flight simulation itself has been constantly improved over its nearly 100 year lifespan. In present day simulations, the entire nose of the aircraft is rebuilt and every possible simulation taken from countless acts of empirical tests is accounted for. After a certain point, this information reaches critical mass, concurrent with Yochai Benkler’s description of peer production. It seems that at this point, with this level of technology, U.S. governments can be satisfied with their investment in training their pilots first on a simulator. That being said, how does all this information transfer to a video game, moreover, a videogame that will be fun to play?
Delving from Baudrillard, theorists on the other side of the spectrum maintain a feeling of necessity for simulation. Gonzalo Frasca talks of simulation as the ultimate learning tool, often misunderstood as an interactive narrative. With the dawning of the computer and artificial intelligence, simulations were created that could go right on a PC with no extra apparatus or setup. Frasca makes a clear distinction between simulation and narrative, “For an external observer, the outcome of a simulation is a narration. But the simulation itself is something bigger than narrative. It is a dynamic system that yes, contains thousands of potential "stories", but it is larger than the sum of its parts. The simulation itself is not a narrative, it is something different, in the same way that a kaleidoscope should not be understood as a collection of possible images but instead as a device that produces images according to certain mechanics.” One may ask why it does not suffice to show a film depicting a sequence of events . This may be true for teaching simple concepts, but for complex systems and ideas, experimentation is crucial to understanding. Applying this to our experiment, we aim to evaluate the tutorial section of the game, which merely shows how to maneuver the plane and use specific buttons. Is this helpful to the user or does one simply start playing in order to fully grasp the game?
For each subject the experiment was conducted in the same manner. Prior to their arrival, all equipment necessary for the experiment was set up and ready to operate. These preparations included all of the following: one laptop with "Lock On," our flight simulator of choice loaded onto it, one external hard-drive to store all data from the flight simulator, a flight specific joystick controller (pre-calibrated), one "Lock On" game manual, one laptop equipped with built in camera to film subject, a standard chair for the subject to sit in for the duration of the experiment, any number of extra light sources needed to illuminated the subject sufficiently for filming, and finally, one flat and otherwise cleared table used to mount all the equipment. Large and uncluttered rooms were chosen to hold the experiment in to reduce any or all distractions. No other electronic devices were allowed to be in use while the experiment was underway nor were any unassociated personnel allowed in the testing area. The atmosphere was kept as professional and sterile as possible to ensure that the game was the only focus for the subjects. Once ready, the subjects were asked to enter the room and take a seat in front of the computer and game controls. Before being filmed or allowed to play, the purpose of the experiment as aforementioned in the introduction was outlined and the subjects were given a chance to ask any questions. Once their questions and concerns were answered, the preliminary interview was initiated. While being filmed, the subjects were asked the questions based on their affiliation to the Air Force. The ROTC subject was asked a specific set of questions to determine his level of involvement with the organization:
• Do you aspire to be a pilot in the USAF?
• If yes, what type of aircraft would you prefer to pilot?
• How many years have you been a cadet?
• What experience do you have with real aircraft?
• Have you encountered a USAF flight simulator?
• How important is realism to you in this genre of video game?
• Is it more important than having an intense (but unrealistic) gaming experience?
• Do you ever play these games on your own free time?
• What will you be looking for in this particular video game?
• What other games do you play on your free time?

Questions asked to non-cadets:
• Are you sure that you don't harbor any secret desires to become a fighter pilot thus compromising the neutral manner of this study?
• What other video games do you play on outside of media studies surveys?
• Would you elect to play a flight simulator game on your own?
• What would you expect from the game?
• Is realism less or more important than the games ability to exhilarate you?
• Do you usually make connections with the real military services of the United States when playing military simulation games?

Filming was then stopped and the subjects were introduced to the game "Lock On". A training mission for an F-15C Eagle fighter jet was loaded onto the screen. Filming resumed as the subjects were asked to watch, but not play, the training mission. The training mission selected was a didactic and non-interactive experience that demonstrated the procedures and techniques for piloting the F-15 into simulated combat that would be later required in the experiment. During this time the gamer was left alone with the game, no further verbal explanation of "Lock On" or its workings were given. The only source of information regarding the game that the subjects were allowed to consult was the training mission. Filming ceased and it was explained to the subjects that they would now be playing an actual mission using the skills they had just developed in the training mission. They were allowed to adjust any settings of the game that affected the level of realism experienced such as quantity of weapons carried, skill of enemy pilot, weather, ease of radar use, level of systems automation, amount of fuel carried, and level of survivability for their own aircraft.
Filming resumed and the subjects were allowed to play the air combat mission with the settings they chose. Once the subjects lost (no one won) to the enemy or crashed the game was terminated. A series of follow-up questions were then asked to reflect upon the gaming experience, both the cadet and non-cadets were asked the same questions:
• You were allowed to adjust all of the settings; did you make it as realistic as possible?
• Did you read about the controls etc. before even beginning the game?
• When flying, did you follow all of your objectives precisely without detouring or messing around?
• Did you ever find yourself saying, "It’s not like that in real life."?
• On a scale of 1 to 10, how close did this game bring you to feeling like a real fighter pilot?

Of the three test subjects, the one with no previous flight simulator experience reacted most negative towards the simulation experience. Based on videogames she did play, she enjoyed the gaming experience that provided instant gratification. As a result, it seemed she could not understand the subtle nuances of a flight simulator being too consumed with boredom of flying straight towards a target. It seemed she needed the narrative aspect of the game to keep her interested, or at the very least this type of free exploration didn’t excite her. Ironically, she thought the game was unrealistic because she ran out of ammo, when in reality combat fighters only have a finite number of missiles (6-8). Though she misunderstood the game, it seemed too realistic for her to really invest herself in the simulation.
Similarly, the ROTC cadet also had trouble engaging with the game, but in his case, it was for an entirely opposite reason. The test subject already had real flight hours along with some hi-tech flight simulation training, and that prior knowledge inhibited him from investing in the simulation. Interestingly, when asked about the training, he found it to be fairly adequate. He then noted that in the Air Force, up to $2 million dollars are spent training each pilot over a period of two years. Though he wasn’t entirely set on having the most realistic experience possible, the level of realism provided by the game couldn’t come close to his prior experience, and as such prohibited him from enjoying it. On the other hand, the subject that only played flight simulators thoroughly enjoyed his experience. He specifically noted that realism is what makes games fun for him. That being said, he had only previously played commercial flight simulators, not combat ones. This provided him with the perfect framework to engage in this game. His previous experience let him appreciate the flight physics and detail, yet his inexperience in combat simulation enabled him to immerse himself in the game without being held-up on inaccuracies. In addition, he was the only test subject that used the interactivity of the game to his advantage, experimenting with the jet’s capabilities in the beginning instead of flying in a straight line. His experimental nature can explain why he wasn’t involved during training because he couldn’t physically interact and learn the controls. All in all, his experience was most enjoyable, mainly because his definition of fun fell right on the line between gaming and realism.
Our experiment yielded quality data that we can use to re-evaluate our theories on flight simulation and simulation in general. It seemed that a clear distinction was made between the training, a narrative procedure, and the game, an interactive one. Concurrent with Frasca, though the game is more or less an amalgamation of narratives, it is, in itself, an entity on to its own. In addition, we found that the most enjoyable experience came from relating a well-explored framework (commercial simulation) to a new application (combat). This provided the user with ample tools to engage the game, yet posed a challenge at the same time, resulting in maximum enjoyment. To evaluate Baudrillard’s theory, it might be useful to follow the ROTC subject through flight school and into the field, interviewing him about how his training related to real flying. In any event, it seems that this massive following of flight simulator fans results from an appreciation of detail. That’s not to say each person knows everything there is to know about physics or airplanes, but one can understand the complexity and nuances that exist in flying. Maybe they feel it gets them closer to the gods; maybe it enables them to do things otherwise impossible. Maybe they just have their heads in the clouds.