I remember reading a sci-fi novel once, where the narrator casually remarked that war was conducted through the medium of video games. At the time, I didn’t pay the idea much attention. It was something the author probably threw in there as an afterthought, and it wasn’t mentioned again throughout the story. Standing in the shower one day, the phrase from the novel came back to me suddenly. I was intrigued by the concept. War waged only through video games? Militaries around the world have become interested in using electronic software as training simulators. But could video games ever truly substitute flesh-and-blood warfare in the real world?

My answer? No.

Why not? I feel that the basic operations that power video games are against any practical warfare application. Although we live in an era of “push-button warfare”, it is important to remember that pushing said buttons always leads to the launching of a physical drone or missile. Warfare can only be sanitized on one end: the side pulling the trigger. For those on the business end of the muzzle, warfare is anything but a clean affair. Even if a team of tacticians in a first-world command center only see the results on a screen, there is real human suffering occurring simultaneously somewhere else on the planet. Therefore, we have only separated ourselves from the experience of doing battle, if not the damage it causes.

I like to believe that the history of warfare shows an evolution of our desire to separate ourselves from our opponents in battle. From the very beginning, we beat each other with sticks and stones. Later on we decided to skewer each other with sharpened pieces of metal. Eventually, we decided that shooting little objects at each other was more efficient than running up and engaging in a sword duel. Then we decided that it might be better just to launch nuclear weapons and vaporize each other without leaving home. Why go out when you can order take-out, right?

But what about digital warfare? Digital warfare includes hacking for information, and the disruption of electronic databases. I’m no security expert, so I can’t comment on those. I would still include digital warfare as a form of combat, although it is something governments are doing without actively declaring war. But the whole point of electronic intrusion is breaking a certain set of rules. It means getting access to materials you weren’t supposed to. What you do with those materials depends entirely on your motivations. But it is from the idea of illegal intrusion that I find game warfare problematic.

From a layman’s perspective, video games operate as mimicry, or at least a glamorization, of real life. To a programmer, video games are endless blocks of code. In both cases, both gamer and programmer understand that video games operate within a certain set of rules and conditions. In every video game, including those portraying warfare, those playing the game understand that there are rules to be followed. The programmers and developers have included these “rules” before the game was ever released. I’m not talking about stopping at red lights, or paying for items before you take them from the store. I’m talking about the logical rules that structure games. If you think about it, video games take place in weird worlds that operate on the fuzziest of logic.

Sometimes this is intentional, as in the case of Mario jumping on top of creatures to defeat them. Now, I’m not debating that jumping on someone wouldn’t hurt…but I seriously recommend against trying this the next time you get into a fist fight. How do blocks in games like Catherine stay afloat even if nothing is holding them up? Anyone who’s ever played Catherine will explain that the blocks are held up because the edges of each block are touching something else. As Catherine’s protagonist Vincent points out, gravity doesn’t seem to be in effect. Catherine’s block-pushing puzzles all take place within dreams, however, so anything can be theoretically excused. But Mario’s jumping tactics are a little harder to justify.

Other games attempt to simulate quasi-realism. Even if they don’t aim for complete realism, they at least look semi-believable, much like the way Hollywood action movies are both absurd and yet almost believable at the same time. How does Alex Mason inhale bullets and survive simply by waiting a few seconds? Where is Niko Bellic stuffing his impressive arsenal? Everyone knows that Grand Theft Auto and Call of Duty aren’t meant to be serious representations of real life. But they sure do look a lot more real than any Sonic title ever will.

Regardless of how believable the “logic” in a title is, gamers understand that each title operates within its own world, with its own rules.  This means that you understand that there are certain boundaries on a map you simply can’t cross. You know that you can’t damage a Robot Master while it’s “blinking”. In some games, you understand that you can fall over 50 feet, and you won’t receive any damage. In other games, you know that you can’t fall more than five feet without dying. These rules are the reason why video games simply can’t supplement combat in real life.

Competitive multiplayer operates much like sports. It is expected that all the participants will honour the rules, despite a fierce desire to win. Obviously, not everyone is going to follow the rules, so referees are employed to watch over the players during matches. But war is different. In a war, there is much more at stake than any sporting trophy or title. For video games to become a medium of combat, both sides would need to agree to certain conditions of fighting. These are the rules that were discussed earlier. An impartial third party must become involved in designing a “game” in which the two belligerent armies can battle it out. If that sounds absurd to you, that’s probably because it is. In a global sense, it seems unlikely or almost impossible to find a completely unbiased party to create the software necessary to facilitate virtual combat. Sure, there are a handful of neutral countries (Switzerland comes to mind), as well as thousands of game corporations that might take on the job. The problem is that no party is likely to undertake such a task without financial compensation. Once money becomes involved, it’s hard to remain impartial. What’s to stop war from turning into a major gaming tournament? Small wars could become Olympic-like events.

What would ensure that a country would follow the rules of the game?

Assuming the challenge of creating a software is surpassed, what is to keep each country from breaking the rules ? Why should Mario have to jump on enemies to kill them? What’s wrong with just plowing through them? Why should you be limited to carrying 5 weapons? Having six would give you an advantage over the enemy. See the problem? Digital intrusion and manipulation remain a risk. Of course, it could be said that most countries don’t follow the rules in real combat anyway. That’s mostly true, but it’s even less likely that rules will be followed when a war is boiled down to a video game.

Finally, even if we assume that digital combat is somehow feasible, it couldn’t replace true physical combat. The simple reason is that an actual war allows the winner to enforce rules. If a war erupted over the price of a particular product, and two nations declare war against each other, the losing nation might have to agree to lower the price of the product. But without the threat of physical annihilation, there is simply no way that the winning country could enforce any sort of victory. The world would be boiled down to a complex honour system. If the recent financial crisis has shown us anything, it should be that imaginary promises linked to tangible goods simply don’t work when applied globally.

So could gaming become a major competitive event? Absolutely, it is entirely possible that competitive video games will one day match or surpass the importance of Olympic events. Will video games replace war? It’s a interesting concept, but it just doesn’t seem feasible.