Rhetoric in "Halo3"

Rhetoric in “Halo 3”

Dr. Gerald Voorhees

Ryan Harvey

May, 05 2010

First I will briefly explain Halo 3. Then I will look into what argument (or rhetorical act) Halo 3 makes by referencing leading arguments for rhetorical acts in video games. Next I am going to look at how the game makes the argument. Last I will be discussing the public controversy or dialectic this game enters into. A sense of mimicry is brought out when viewing Halo 3 in this way. A sense of mimicry that revolves around real life experiences. Looking at Halo 3 through a rhetorical perspective lens reveals a discourse about the Iraq War.

The Covenant race has been torn apart by a civil war. The Elites, led by the Arbiter, on one side and the Brutes, led by the Higher Prophet of Truth, on the other.  The Elites are siding with the humans in the war against the flood, the Brutes and against the activation of a Ring. Destroying the ring will kill the Flood and its leader, the Gravemind without destroying the entire universe. Meanwhile the Brutes along with Truth are trying to fulfill a religious prophecy by firing the rings. The humans, led in field by Master Chief, want to help the Elites destroy the ring and stop the Brutes.

            Halo 3 has two factions (Elites and Humans) that were once at war and now must come together to defeat two common evils. This all started when the Arbiter heard how the Higher Prophet of Truth is betraying the Elites, because of their failure to protect one of the other prophets, which starts the covenant civil war. Master Chief and the Arbiter both end up in the hands of the Gravemind in Halo 2. The Gravemind reveals how the firing of the rings would destroy the universe and sends them to different locations in an attempt to stop the Brutes from activating the rings. Even this helpful notion and moment of connection between the three factions fails to unite the Flood to the cause; the Flood will continue to follow their own agenda. So now both the Master Chief and the Arbiter must fight their way through Flood and the betraying covenant forces to stop the firing of the ring.

            Halo 3 argues that the only way to defeat a common evil is for nations to come together and put aside their differences. Like the Humans and Elites, there are countries that need to bond over the evil that infects them both. Mcgee describes this step as, “the relationship between the apparently finished discourse and its sources. (1990, 278-282)

            Starting at the end of Halo 2, the Elites and the Human must put aside their differences to accomplish something great. They must defeat two evils; one that wants the annihilation of everything except for themselves and one that wants the annihilation of everyone including themselves so they can prosper in the afterlife. Both basically want the same thing although they do hate each other. Both parties want the death of everyone else even though the Brutes, in turn, want to die so they will live in the afterlife and the Flood will feed on non Flood infected beings until there is nothing left. They are both running towards accomplishing the feat of destroying themselves. It is not until the end of Halo 3 that the Flood realizes they too must help the cause by putting aside their differences and stop the Higher Prophet and the Brutes from destroying the universe. But, as way of the Flood, they continue to try infecting and converting every soul soon after the Prophet is dead and the Universe is relatively safe. These things are textual fragments that make up the discourse in this analysis. Warring factions that must come together to fight a common evil. The fact that there is an evil who wants to get in your way and benefit from the annihilations of the saviors. These Fragments in turn make up the context. As McGee states, “discourses are made up of scraps and pieces of evidence.”(1990, 278-282) This evidence is gathered from the game, its story and interactivity. “Computer games are comprised of rhetorical events that work to make meanings in players” according to McAllister. (2003, 31-32) He is talking about these events in the game that make the game what it is and how they are interpreted by the player to mean something. In this case they speak to the War in Iraq. Now I am going to go into how the game makes its argument.

            McGee describes this next part as, “relationships between a apparently finished discourse and culture”. (1990, 278-282) I’ll bring in events from the Iraqi war to better inform readers about the background of the social context that the game falls into questioning. What this game is trying to convince its audience to perceive in their world. After 9/11 in 2001, the U.S. was franticly trying to find and eliminate all of the culprits that were responsible or contributed to the terrorist attacks. Over the next two years, weapons of mass destruction came into sight as a major terrorist threat.  Saddam Hussein, who violated agreements with the U.S., put his country in the spot light of inspection. After Hussein’s oppressive ways against the Iraqi people and the various other attacks on Middle Eastern Countries, suspicion of WMD’s was the last straw. The U.S. called for the Coalition of the Willing which would use force to disarm terrorist factions and force a change in regime for the country of Iraq.  The Coalition of the Willing describes the group of people that would join the United States to stop Saddam Hussein if he did not disarm himself. It was stated, at the NATO meeting in Europe, that 49 countries would help the U.S. in this invasion but only four countries opted to help out the U.S. in its war on terror. The U.K., Australia, Poland and Denmark would help strategize their militaries in an effort to support the U.S. After the Invasion on March 20, 2003, the Iraqi government was easily overthrown and the plan for rebuilding the Iraqi military and post-Saddam Government were met with opposition by insurgencies. The Ba’ath regime, composed of Iraqi nationalists and pan-Arabists started fighting back to secure the religious Islamic Caliphate, which is the uniting of all Muslims. So the Iraqi’s that want the U.S. to help them overthrow Hussein are targets for these Islamic Nationalists and Al-Qaeda just as much as the U.S. is. Al-Qaeda are also militant Islamists who wish to restore their beliefs by obliterating all the others. (Murray 2003, 43-88)(Bello 2008, 120-124)

            With a game that closely imitates the Iraq War, it is easy to make the connection and see the reasons of rhetoric Halo 3 holds in this situation. The fragments that hold a sort of mimicry to real world events make the mortar of discourse, while the games messages about these events provide the bricks. Now it’s time to enter how this discourse is convincing in a real world sense and what the discourse is trying to persuade the players to believe.

            The fact that the countries within the Coalition of the Willing and NATO had their differences in the past is inevitable. Just like the Elites and Humans coming together to stop the destruction of the universe, these countries must come together to stop the destruction of the humanity. These differences must be overlooked if countries are to come together to fight a worldwide evil. The fact that the U.S. and the Iraqi people have had their differences and continue to struggle with which side is really helping who, is ongoing. The Brutes and Grunts, who carry out orders from the Prophet of Truth are just like Hussein’s Regimes that carry out orders for the continuation of his rule. The High Prophet of Truth was defeated just like how Saddam was defeated just as the Brutes and Grunts continue in the ways of their fallen leader, the Ba’ath regime follows in the ideologies of Saddam Hussein. They hate western involvement in their government and that wish to unify the Muslim people under their religious beliefs just as Al-Qaeda want to kill anyone who doesn’t share their beliefs. The Iraqi people need to see that we are helping them and not trying to rip apart their religious belief systems but they also need to recognize the evil within organizations like Al-Qaeda, and help the U.S. to defeat this evil. U.K., Australia, Poland and Denmark have already come together to help liberate the Iraqi people and help them help themselves. In recent years there have been many improvements on this front and the strength that Iraq has to help abolish terrorism has been on the rise. Iraq’s government is strengthening as the new president inspires the people of Iraq. (Murray 2003, 43-88)(Clausson 2006, 12-16)

            “Eight years after the events of September 11, 2001, the contemporary American social scene is still defined, in many ways, by discourses contesting multitudes of differences. And in fact, with the increased prevalence of racial profiling as a tool in the "war on terror," which is often talked about as clash of cultures, religions and civilizations, and the resurgence of controversy on the subjects of immigration and gay rights, American audiences may be even more preoccupied by national, ethnic and cultural tensions than ever before.”(Voorhees 2009, par 51)

            Halo 3 wants us to know that even if two countries have had their differences in the past they can come together when it counts and it doesn’t come easy. There are races that look different, live different and they are different, there is no getting around that. Nations may have fought before, but when a common evil comes and threatens us all we need to put other conflict aside. I believe we are on the right track, more and more countries offered their help over the years and the world in Iraq is getting better but we are not out of the woods yet. We need to keep moving forward in a positive direction. Taking things away from this analysis like Rhetorical Fragments from the game or the context that holds them together, will help to create a visual for people to relate to. The discourse that Halo 3 exudes is a powerful message and the dialectic that readers and players should take away from this discourse is meant to point out and motivate.

Works cited

Bello, Walden. World Tribunal on Iraq: Making the Case against War. Ed. Müge Gürsoy.

Sökmen. Northampton, Mass.: Olive Branch, 2008. Print.

Clausson, M. I. NATO: Status, Relations, and Decision-making. New York: Nova Science, 2006.

Print.

McAllister, Ken S. Game Work: Language, Power, and Computer Game Culture. Tuscaloosa,

Ala.: Univ Of Alabama, 2004. Print.

McGee, Michael C. "Text, Context, and the Fragmentation of Contemporary Culture." Wester

Journal of Commuication 54.3 (1990): 278-82. Print.

Murray, Williamson, and Robert H. Scales. The Iraq War: a Military History. Cambridge, Mass.:

Belknap of Harvard UP, 2003. Print.

Voorhees, Gerald. "The Character of Difference: Procedurality, Rhetoric, and Roleplaying

Games." Game Studies 9.2 (2009). The International Journal of Computer Game

Research. Web. <http://gamestudies.org/0902/articles/voorhees>.