Prosthetic Memory and Culture: Experiencing World War I in Battlefield 1.
Media is a powerful tool. Its ability to bridge the gap between the memories of events in the past and the modern world is just as important as its ability to spread information and data around the planet. There are a few forms of contemporary media, these include; television, cinema and photography. Through the use of contemporary media, history has been portrayed numerous times to depict the scenes of the First World War. The best example is that of cinema. Its production of mass media imagery has the ability to inaugurate memories of events that happened over a century ago, leaving consumers feeling possessed by the experiences produced in the film. This is what is known as the theory ‘Prosthetic Memory’ (Landsberg, 1995). Once of the most critically acclaimed and historically accurate World War I films ‘Gallipoli’ (Weir, 1981) was a key moment of historical depiction, provided a viewer a memory of the event of the war. This is a memory that the viewer will never be able to experience in real life.
However, over the years newer forms of media have entered the mainstream popular culture, one such form of media is known today as video games. Originally designated as a leisurely tool, video games have evolved in to large-scale cinematic experiences, which also have the ability to connect individuals around the world and can be used for educational purposes; known as “Edutainment” (Bogost, 2005; Brown, 2014). One of the main purposes video games provide consumers, is the ability to live out, first hand, experiences whether it is historical or fantastical experiences which are not of our own. This therefore provides us with a memory of our experience of an event, which we as the player were not involved in, relating back to the idea of prosthetic memory (Landsberg, 1995). The experience a player has whilst playing a video game leads them to remembering the real history behind the game, regarding back to World War I, the most recent and critically acclaimed video game depicting the event is known as Battlefield 1 (2016). People, who played the game, would have remembered the real history of World War I.
(Opening Cinematic)
Video games have become notoriously known for unequivocally representing war zones in media, due to its mature and sometimes graphic content which is designed adults 18 and above (Sherry, 2001; Near, 2012). From this point of view, Battlefield 1 can be considered to achieve prosthetic characteristics as the player earns and accepts new memories of the past whilst continually playing the video game. We must investigate whether or not Battlefield 1 portrays the historical event of World War I in such a way that it has provided a prosthetic memory to the player; where the representation of the historical event is the source of the memory and knowledge. For example, do we as the player believe that World War I was fought with the same weapons, which are displayed in the video game Battlefield 1? It can be argued therefore that video games are a tool for memory. It is useful to make us as players remember the past. Since video games are not considered to be part of mainstream media just yet, some media outlets such as television news still portray video games in a negative light, anything that instills fear in people is the story that rates (Serrels, 2018). Due to this, representing the past, such as World War I, can become complicated.
The aim of this project is simple, to identify how the experience and representation of World War I is achieved by a player through the medium of video games, within the first person shooter of Battlefield 1. This project will be looking into the different aspects of prosthetic memory, as well as prosthetic culture, in a bid to identify what effects it can have on an individual; does the narrative of Battlefield 1, as well the set pieces that take place during the game, desensitize the materialization of events where the audience must rely on their prosthetic memory of the events of World War I. By using Battlefield 1 as the main example of this project, as the case study of the examination of memory, this work will serve a binary purpose: firstly, outlining the distinctive indicators of prosthetic memory and secondly, identify issues of prosthetic memory when examining the experience of World War I through video games.
When exploring Battlefield 1, an issue, which may arise, is that of authentic representation. Authentic memory is presented as a problematic concept, the desire for a stable memory can and has been plagued by issues of instability and unrealiability (Grainge, 2003). Video games provide a platform to engage with history. The game has the ability to provide a simulation engaging with the history, it provides a powerful means to explaining the complex phenomena of the constraints and possibilities which people in the real past lived in and acted upon in (McCall, 2011). As I mentioned earlier, representing the past experience of World War I can become complicated is down to the need for understanding that these constraints and possibilities, mentioned above, is an important part of understanding why some historical outcomes and factual representations are more likely than others. The issue here with video games is that the designers of the game may put creative and essentially “fun” decisions ahead of, in terms of importance, factual historical narrative. This is due to a video games primary nature for entertainment and economic gains (McCall, 2011).
(Realistic graphic Representation of the game)
Pushing the key factor of entertainment, Battlefield 1 embraces an ultra-violent representation of World War I; players are rewarded with point scoring bonuses, such as the “melee bonus”. The player is rewarded for being up close and personal, something that World War I was not renowned for. The warfare was described as a large-scale form of combat, mostly fought in waves (Marshall, 2001). The video game gives induces the prosthetic memories that the war was close quarter combat. The game mechanics underrepresent the real battles. This is primarily due to the game designers putting entertainment above historical accuracy as the important mechanic of the game.
(Violent Kills)
Whilst viewing the above video, the memory of real war becomes complicated. The gameplay desensitizes the reality of the event World War I. The game focuses on rewarding players for violent acts therefore limiting the real memories. The prosthetic memories that take over suggest to players that inciting violent acts in war is rewarding and that there is no need for the narrative of World War I.
Another key issue that affects the memory of an individual through the reenactment of a historical event is the fact that video games take huge inspiration from cinema. In the case of Battlefield 1, the aesthetic nature of the game gives it an ultra realistic glimpse into World War 1, primarily due to it being a first person shooter. Battlefield 1’s single player mode incorporates cinematic cut scenes, which are designed to take the player away from gameplay and to pick up information. Cut scenes are designed from the start to look like a movie; even to its ability to letterbox the scene takes heavy inspiration from cinema (Egenfeldt-Nielsen, Smith and Tosca, 2016). The issue with this is that films have often been criticized in the representation of history. The ability of a film to engage with history as well as portray accurately facts, figures, dates and likeness can be challenged by audience viewers due to potential claims of bias and ideological influences to construct the narrative (Carlsten, 2015). For video games to take inspiration of movies to create cinematic narrative sequences can lead to game designers maybe taking too much inspiration from cinema. This could lead to video games suffering similar consequences to movies when in regards to authentic representation. It can be suggested that the functions of film and cinema complicate and interfere with memory of the historical experiences portrayed. This then provides us with inaccurate historical events. Video games may fall into the same pitfalls if too much inspiration is taken from film when crafting a game.
Overall, it is true that difficulties come to light when attempting to represent the past within a video game such as Battlefield 1. Whether it be the design and creative decisions that are implemented in the game or the inspiration it takes from different media outlets such as film, the memory of World War I becomes confusing and merges with the ideas of the player. Prosthetic memories eventually take over from historical memory, because we as players never experienced the real thing, only through a video game (Boot et al., 2008).
The player’s relationship with the game is what makes memory become prosthetic; it is the complication of representation of World War I that produces these prosthetic memories. The experiences we have when playing Battlefield 1 become desensitized, we don’t fear dying within our play through of the game as we simply just respawn and start again. With that being said, I believe it is more important now, more than ever, to consider how video games as a medium can become a part of our memory. These memories allow us to feel as if we witnessed a historical event, such as World War I, first hand.
Many gamers associate themselves to video games, which relate to history (Gee, 2007). The interesting thing to point out is how gamers are; described as “associated”, here we must identify what the established relationship is when we associate ourselves with a video game depicting the past. What is it specifically about in video games that connect us to the past? Do we as gamers, create an increase in awareness and general understanding of historical events when we participate in the play through of video games? Or do we as gamers relate to specific themes and ideologies within the video game, which relate to the history? Ideally, we would need to identify why we “associate” ourselves with a video game. Players feel the connection and association with Battlefield 1 due to the transference of memory (Bennett, 2003). This is in response to the player unbeknownst to them, have been exposed to external memories of which we have and never will have lived. This identifies why we as individuals create emotional reactions to historical events (Grodal, 2002). We as individuals dump experiences and replace them with “experiential collective memories” (Burgoyne, 2003).
Traditional memory, describes the relationship of an individual to the past. This is put in the sense of physical relationships to an event. An event of which is significant enough to instruct and educate the subjective of the person whose memory is being used. History and historical events is seen as abstract. Public events transform into spectator scenarios, which shape and form the subjectivity of an individual (Burgoyne, 2003). In this instance: the gamer playing Battlefield 1.
Although the two components are thought of separately, Burgoyne (2003) states that they have now become linked to contemporary media. With Battlefield 1, the spectator scenarios as mentioned above become obsolete. “Experiential collective memories” takes centre stage, replacing spectator scenarios. “Experiential collective memories” is now identified as the first hand account, of the game being played, making the represented memory our own. Battlefield 1 and other forms of media, such as film, becomes the central and unified site of remembering and memory and forgetting past events in the instance of World War I. Carlsten (2015) states that memory is highly mediated and not trustworthy. Its instability is what creates the potential of new histories, ones that maybe never happened.
Applying this idea to Battlefield 1, the events of the game are provided to the player, the memory is given to the player as they are. This transaction of memory from game to player is the process of making a new history. The game allows the player to acquire the eloquent memories depicted and make them their own memories. The best way to clarify this process is to describe the experience as a prosthetic memory. Prosthetic memories was first described as the way mass cultural technologies of media gives people the ability to experience an event in time as if they were memories of their own. Alison Landsberg initially conceived the idea of prosthetic memory. Landsberg (1995) states “Mass media technologies that structure and circumscribe experience, bring the texture and contours of prosthetic memory into dramatic relief”. We have never lived the events of World War I but we are given a taste in Battlefield 1, the memories of the war are not of our own so we remember it through parts of the game. This is due to the fact that memories are circulated in the public sphere, memories are not organically based but we experience them with our own minds and body (Landsberg, 1995). The external memory, which has been adapted to fit our individual experience, is the prosthetic memory. Relating back to gamers feeling “associated” with a video game, this may well be the reason why we have these emotional relations with the video game, we experienced the game and now it has become an extension of ourselves.
It is argued that western culture; American citizens in particular, have a conscious desire to live through history or an historical event (Burgoyne, 2003). Living these historical desires wish to be met through the personal and bodily way (Landsberg, 1995). Battlefield 1 depicts the war zones of World War I in a first person point of view, further engaging the player. The first person point of view immerses the player in the experience of traumatic events, this is done through physical interaction, simply because a player controls its view on the screen through a controller or mouse and keyboard. The player can dictate what happens. They get to make decisions just as the soldiers on the front line in World War I had done. It is obvious to point out that the player is not in any form of danger, or in any warzone. The important aspect though, is to understand that the player must ‘feel’ as if they are subconsciously. This process of events is another example of how prosthetic memories work and affect our memory. This idea is shown, when considering Battlefield 1’s portrayal of World War 1, in the prologue gameplay seen below.
(Cinematic cutscene/FPS Gameplay)
The prologue of the game depicts soldiers who are surrounded on a European frontline. In this moment of the game, players are forced to experience the event; the emotions that run throughout this moment of the game induce fear, pressure adrenaline. The game openly states that the player is not expected to survive, putting us through a higher threshold of emotional responses. The high octane and violent depiction of war in this scene furthermore enforces our emotional response and association to the game. This part of the game causes us to relive the history of the event that happened over a century ago. Our external memories come to existence through the simulation of the game. The fact that this moment of the game gives us a serious consequence of death, we no longer simply ‘respawn’, our character dies permanently and the view is shifted to someone new in the battle makes us feel more emotion due to the fact we cannot do anything to stop a person dying. It is a real representation of war. There are consequences.
Battlefield 1 offers a take on the experiential relation to history with physical and literal relationships to that of historical figures, dates and events. Memory does not solely deal with past events; it has to deal with the present experience of memory (Bennett, 2003). An engagement of a battle in the game is that present experience of memory. Our memory takes this and intertwines it with actual past events. The game affects our thought process of the history of World War I. Normally, our cognitive abilities and processes enable a familiar experience to be recognised and interpreted into our memory, the experience of the game therefore alters itself into the narrative and representation.
The impact that prosthetic memory has on individuals affect us in a major way, so much so that it becomes one with our personal experiences (Landsberg, 1995). The players experiencing a memory through a game lead to the process of the memory becoming their own. This causes issues of the players’ ability to determine what is their own memory that they have attained. People must distinguish what is an organic and original memory to that of a prosthetic memory. The difficulty of establishing the difference of memory leads in to the idea of hyperrealism. The ‘hyperreal’ is where an individual cannot tell between the realities presented to the individual (Baudrillard and Glaser, 2010). The process of hyperrealism is where the history of an event becomes set apart from the reality. The statement of the term hyperreal suggests that it is more real than the ‘real’. In terms of people playing Battlefield 1, players can lose the ability to make sense of reality and, in terms of video games, the artificial. The inability to distinguish reality impedes our relationship with history and we become able to detach ourselves from the event of World War I.
Prosthetic memories give people a hyperreal experience. In order to explore how prosthetic memories contribute to hyperrealism, we must look into the idea of ‘mimesis’. Mimesis is the imitated representation of the real world or historical event, such as that of World War I, which provokes bodily mediation when seeing an event photographically (Lury, 2007). Mimesis is the theory that it creates experiences for individuals that become second nature to them. It has the ability to replicate what is real. Mimetic exchanges throughout the world occur on a daily basis, our minds pick up memories through all forms of media, altering our own (Taussig, 1993). Whilst we play though Battlefield 1, prosthetic memories operate inside and outside of the borders of representation. This has the potential to disassociate our senses, which complicates the continuity of representation for the individual (Lury, 2007). For this reason, external memories have the potential to simulate and replicate intimate experiences accustomed to by an individual, thus proving how powerful the artificial encounter, of Battlefield 1, can be when the player witnesses a historical event in the game.
It is obvious that the history in the game is portrayed as a memory to the player. The player can be perceived as encouraged to play with the past and to participate in the past as if were own real life experience. The history of World War I in the game Battlefield 1 develops our previous memory of events. It can also be seen to give an initial memory of events, some younger generations may not know much about the First World War. The reconstruction of war portrayed in Battlefield 1 is a crucial factor in experiencing the war first hand. The first person point of view makes us feel as if we are the ones who are fighting in Europe, in a bodily way. As the player, we are exposed to the rough and ultraviolent scenes of the First World War. We live the history.
We invite ourselves to remember the past; historical consciousness establishes the past in its own right. Its also call upon fantasy that the past lives in us individuals, we live in the past (Hodgkin and Radstone, 2011). A generation of people will rely on the games’ representation of war; in order to remember history. This is an issue. The game will create the memory in which we detach ourselves from the simulation of war. We can stop playing the game, however we will still have the memory of experiences we faced whilst playing the game. The memory will be reoccurring (Taussig, 1993). This leads to the player identifying their selves with the past in a personal manner. Hughes-Warrington (2007) states that the process of “entering the world of a film as a form of identification that entails identity of thought and emotion the loss of a viewer’s separate self-hood”. This supports the idea that Battlefield 1 transmits a prosthetic memory from game to player. However Landsberg (1995) states that there is a rupture between memory and Identity. The player changes his identity to conform to the game. They lose themselves in the prosthetic memory.
In conclusion, the aim of this project was to identify whether the representation of World War 1 in Battlefield 1 replaced and desensitized the substance of prosthetic memory on the events during the First World War. Firstly this project analysed how the memory of historical events become complex through video games and Battlefield 1 in particular. After studying the game, we identified some of the complications involved in the representation of the war were due to inspiration, on the behalf of the game developer, taken from film and cinema as well as the creative choices made in development to prioritise entertainment over historical fact. These creative choices influence how we as player perceived history and altered our memory of that history. Consequently, we as players become desensitized over the representation of war, because we play it to enjoy ourselves.
This project also aimed to flesh out the characteristics of prosthetic memory as well as the potential to live the past events through the game. I identified that we physically embody the past through the game and obtain external memories. The way we physically embody the past through the game, presents the argument that video games as a form of media, impacts our understanding of history and events that occurred throughout our history. This project used Battlefield 1 to prove that a first person perspective of the World War 1, lead to a deeper understanding of the war with players. Despite the player remembering the events as portrayed in the video game, they nonetheless still remember the event. Prosthetic memories have the ability to socially change our identity within the real world, because we feel as if we lived in the past. Prosthetic memories impact us individually, both emotionally and mentally. Memories are less about representing an authentic past, but more to generate possible courses of action in the modern world (Landsberg, 1995).
(WORD COUNT: 3726.)
Bibliography:
Battlefield 1. (2016). Stockholm, Sweden: EA DICE.
Baudrillard, J. and Glaser, S. (2010). Simulacra and simulation. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Bennett, J. (2003). The Aesthetics of Sense-Memory. In: K. Hodgkin and S.Radstone, ed., Regimes of Memory: An Introduction., 1st ed. New York, New York, USA.: Routledge.
Bogost, I. (2005). Videogames and the future of education. On the Horizon, 13(2), pp.119-125.
Boot, W., Kramer, A., Simons, D., Fabiani, M. and Gratton, G. (2008). The effects of video game playing on attention, memory, and executive control. Acta Psychologica, 129(3), pp.387-398.
Brown, H. (2014). Videogames and Education. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis.
Burgoyne, R. (2003). Memory, History and Digital Imagery in Contemporary Film. In: P. Grainge, ed., Memory and Popular Film., 1st ed. Manchester.: Manchester: Manchester University Press., pp.232-236.
Carlsten, J. (2015). Film, history and memory. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Egenfeldt-Nielsen, S., Smith, J. and Tosca, S. (2016). Understanding video games. New York: Routledge.
Gallipoli. (1981). [film] Directed by P. Weir. Australia: R & R Films.
Gee, J. (2007). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Grainge, P. (2003). Memory and popular film. Manchester, UK.: Manchester University Press, pp.4-12.
Grodal, T. (2002). Moving pictures. Oxford: Clarendon Press
Hodgkin, K. and Radstone, S. (2011). Regimes of memory. 3rd ed. London: Routledge.
Hughes-Warrington, M. (2009). History goes to the movies: studying history on film. London: Routledge.
Landsberg, A. (1995). Prosthetic Memory: Total Recall and Blade Runner. Body & Society, 1(3-4), pp.175-189.
Lury, C. (2007). Prosthetic culture. London: Routledge.
Marshall, S. (2001). World War I. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
McCall, J. (2011). Gaming the past. New York: Routledge.
Near, C. (2012). Selling Gender: Associations of Box Art Representation of Female Characters With Sales for Teen- and Mature-rated Video Games. Sex Roles, 68(3-4), pp.252-269.
Serrels, M. (2018). Why Mainstream Reporting on Video Games is Still Often So Negative. [online] Kotaku UK. Available at: http://www.kotaku.co.uk/2016/08/23/why-mainstream-reporting-on-video-games-is-still-often-so-negative [Accessed 21 Apr. 2018].
Sherry, J. (2001). The effects of violent video games on aggression.. Human Communication Research, 27(3), pp.409-431.
Taussig, M. (1993). Mimesis and alterity: a particular history of the senses. New York, N.Y: Routledge.