A new video game lets you play out the battle at Gallipoli. Is it trivialising the tragedy of war?

The recent release of BlackMill Games’ Gallipoli: Ottoman Fronts has been met with some pointed questions, including whether the video game is “mimicking the war”.

Between landing at Anzac Cove on April 25, 1915, and the eight months of fighting that followed, thousands of Australian soldiers lost their lives.

Gallipoli and Anzac history hold an important place in Australian culture. What happens when this history becomes playable?

Why does playing history feel different?

Gallipoli is certainly not the first tragic historical event to become a subject for entertainment. Books, films and TV shows often explore such tragedies.

We don’t usually think of films or books about Gallipoli as being disrespectful, so why does a video game feel different? The answer lies in the word “play”.

When we read a book or watch a film about a historical event, we’re presented with someone else’s version of what happened. The author, or filmmaker, decides what we’re exposed to.

Games, on the other hand, ask us to participate. Players are placed in the situation and must act within its imaginary boundaries. They don’t just witness history; they navigate it.

Gallipoli from both sides

This makes Gallipoli: Ottoman Fronts an interesting case study. The game wasn’t developed without consideration of the history it represents. First world war historian Chris Kempshall acted as an adviser to the BlackMill Games team during the game’s development.

Turning history into a game involves much more than ensuring the uniforms are correct and dates are accurate. Game designers decide what roles players can take, what they can do, and which parts of an event they experience. Input from a reputable historian can help them make these decisions.

Most Australians know the Gallipoli story primarily from the Anzac perspective. But Gallipoli: Ottoman Fronts allows players to fight on both sides of the conflict.

Players fight as either soldiers of the British Empire (including Anzacs) or Ottoman Empire forces in 25 teams. They can choose from ten military classes, including heavy machine gunners, snipers and even stretcher bearers. The teams must work together to capture and defend objectives.

The Ottoman perspective provides an opportunity to explore a side of the Anzac campaign that’s less familiar to Australian audiences. For some, this might prompt reflection: why were the Ottomans defending Gallipoli? What did this event, and the months that followed, look like for them?

Research into the WWI puzzle game Valiant Hearts: The Great War (2014) suggests games can provide a portal for further engagement with historical material including photographs, maps, and first person accounts of those who experienced the event.

In a 2019 study, students playing the video game Assassin’s Creed reported feeling a stronger connection to people from the past, and greater awareness of multiple perspectives on history.

These studies don’t prove every player of a historical game will do their own research, or gain more empathy for those who lived the events. But they do show that games can provide unique opportunities to engage with the past.

Even first-person shooter games such as Spec Ops: The Line (2012) can create a sense of discomfort by making players question the violence they are carrying out.

Shooter games may also help to convey the chaos and complexity of war – a key motivation expressed by the designers of Six Days in Fallujah (2023), set during the US-Iraq war. This game, however, has proven highly controversial, with one Muslim advocacy group describing it as “an Arab murder simulator that will only normalise violence against Muslims in America and around the world”.

The evidence is mixed on if, or how, violent video games can develop empathy in players. Some research has linked violent gameplay with reduced empathy, whereas other studies have found a positive association between violent gameplay and cognitive empathy (being able to understand others’ perspectives).

Part of the problem is the length of time required to ascertain the long-term effects of gameplay, and the fact that “empathy” as a concept is often defined differently in different studies.

Can games change how we see the past?

Games can distort history, simplify complex events and even glorify violence by presenting it as admirable or something to celebrate. But depicting violence isn’t necessarily the same as glorifying it.

Gallipoli: Ottoman Fronts and similar games raise a difficult question: what does it mean to turn the experiences of war into a competitive game?

Consulting historians, as BlackMill Games did – as well as the communities most affected by the historical event – can help game designers make more informed and responsible choices.

Making history playable does not automatically trivialise it; what matters is how that history is communicated and experienced.