The changing character of armed conflict, combined with the transformation of the global media landscape, has fundamentally altered the experience of war for Western audiences. Although physically distanced from its cost to a historically
unprecedented degree, the virtual proximity of the average citizen to war has never been closer. Military first-person shooter (FPS) gaming is a critical component of this dynamic, functioning as the principle means through which to consume and interact with war for a large and growing segment of the population. This influence is problematic. Although exceptions exist, military FPSs typically both reflect and sustain the “war is hell” myth: a conviction, reinforced through interactive gameplay, that the rules of war cannot, and indeed should not, apply to the battlefield. We argue that a more complete and nuanced integration of the laws of war into this medium would help shift popular understandings of armed conflict, and the legal restraints
imposed on it, in a more positive direction and, at the same time, allow game designers to better fulfil their commitment to a
“realistic” depiction of the battlefield