E3: Epic, US Army Develop Games as Recruitment Tool 820
securitas writes "Reuters and AP tell us that Epic Games and the US Army have announced the America's Army series of games, jointly developed by the Department of Defense and Epic. The first two-part game in the five-year project includes an RPG called Soldier and a first-person shooter called Operations. The game will be free of charge and available for download in July or August, with 1.2 million CDs simultaneously released, attached to gaming magazines. Does this remind anyone else of the war-room scene from Toys or Ender's Game?" Future installments will include Sim Mess Duty, Sim Standing Guard in the Rain, Sim Blister, and Sim Invading Iraq to Keep Approval Ratings High.
Missing the point yet again (Score:3, Insightful)
Speaking as a hardcore gamer myself, I could care less about who makes a game. I couldn't care less about how it's distributed. I couldn't care less about how it's "brainwashing people" or how it's "like Toys!". It all comes down to one thing: Is the game fun? From what Penny Arcade [penny-arcade.com] tells me, it is going to be fun. That's all I care about.
This is what separates the average geek crowd from the true gamers among us. The average geeks don't understand what it really means to be a hardcore gamer. All they care about is how many polys a model has, how good it looks, or how the breasts are modeled ("She kicks high"). Hell, I'm 23 and I'll be playing Mario, Zelda, and dozens of other "kiddie" games the day they're released, and I don't care.
This is why I hate mainstream media coverage of games. Leave it to the professionals, please.
Don't Foget This One... (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't forget the final game in the series: "Risking Their Lives to Protect Your Right to Make Stupid Jokes."
Is this news or editorial? (Score:1, Insightful)
This is a news site, correct? And on most news sites isn't editorial content explicitly labeled as opinion or commentary?
I realize that michael may think that all slashdotters agree with his bias, whatever it may be, but I assure you there are many who do not.
In other words, michael, keep your opinions to yourself if you want to pass this off as a news site!
Re:Army of One (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Army of One (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Gimme a break (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You shut up. (Score:3, Insightful)
I only hope this comment was done in sarcasm, but this elitist attitude I so often see from people who served in the military that bothers me. You tell me that I don't understand the meaning of the military or service, yet every day I drive by dozens of memorials to those who have died in the past, and am reminded of their sacrifice. I am thankful that there were people like them to protect our nation.
Then I drive by lots of real tall buildings, and I am reminding of the what they were fighting to protect. Which is more important, the fight, or that which is being protected? I am grateful forpeople serve our military; my grandfather was in Korea, and my father served during the Vietnam Era.
Still, that which is protected bears greater significance than the protectors. Our freedoms, liberties, our constitution, all are much more important than the soldier that died in an attempt to preserve them.
The fight to preserve our liberties is no longer being fought on foreign battlefields, but in our legal system. I think we had a better chance when it had to do with who lasted the longest out there than we do putting faith in judges, juries, and politicians.
But please, do not ever tell me I don't understand the military, or have no right to make light of it. If it really was protecting my rights, then I can say anything I want to about them, now can't I? =]
Re:Don't Foget This One... (Score:3, Insightful)
Speaking from experience... (Score:3, Insightful)
Nor were power-ups of any sort available, unless you count caffiene.
It was certainly real-time, though much of the real-time was spent waiting.
Re:Army of One (Score:3, Insightful)
That, and trying to convince a generation that at least *thinks * they are individualistic that they really want to join up.
Way to go (Score:2, Insightful)
Nice way to belittle the work and sacrifices that I and millions of other people throughout the world have given in protecting YOUR rights. Yes, guard and mess duty sucks, but it's a part of military life. So does PT, first call at zero-dark-thirty, inspections, shining boots, cleaning weapons, endless makework, etc.. but it's all a necessary part of military life in order to keep discipline.
As for "Sim Invading Iraq to Keep Approval Ratings High", that's an issue with the leadership, not the men and women who go when given the order. It's easy to criticize and ridicule from the safety of one's Aeron office chair. It's another thing entirely to raise your hand and swear to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Don't knock it until you've tried it.
Please Explain....... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Don't Foget This One... (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh right. Could you please point me to the latest bill/law/act voted that actually Protect Your Right To Whatever ?
Re:Is this news or editorial? (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure to succeed (Score:4, Insightful)
Looking around, all the people of my generation have one of a few careers:
* Alien-attacker, particularly where you have three bases to hide behind
* Ever-hungry giant mouth eating never-ending supply of pellets
* Race car driver on tracks with a lot of popup
* Professional princess rescuer, particularly when you can jump on a lot of mushrooms
* Cubical worker
That last one is the least suprising. I remember as a kid, me and my friends would never stop playing "Cubical Worker!" It was the most popular game in America at the time, which is why everyone seems to have grown up to do it for a living.
> The Army expects by September to spent about $7.5 million on the program
Whew! I'm glad we're spending $7.5 million on this project. With this new Republican leadership manning the purse strings, we've got so much money, I was worried there was no way we'd be able to spend it all. This is a great example of how to get rid of it.
What was that? A $100 billion dollar deficit [salon.com]?
Wait... which party was for big government and likes to waste money?
Re:Gimme a break (Score:3, Insightful)
Get off your high horse. Yes, they died for our freedom but that also includes the freedom to say what we want about them and criticize the government when we feel it's necessary. Pull your head out of your ass and smell reality for a change.
If Bush invades Iraq it certainly won't be the first time that a politician has picked a fight to boost his approval ratings. What I find to be truly disgusting is the way that the Bush-Cheney gang have used and are still using the events of September 11th as an excuse to grab more power for themselves and then keep the American people and congress in the dark by claiming "national security". This also isn't the first time that a politician has done this either.
Simulation? (Score:2, Insightful)
I hope it comes with training on crimes of war [crimesofwar.org], international law [uwa.edu.au], and the Geneva Conventions [irct.org].
Re:I have seen this (Score:5, Insightful)
Lets look at some popular games:
CounterStrike: Most people would say this is as "real" as it gets, when you die, your gone. But you can get hit in the leg, stamper for a second, then are back running full speed again. You can get shot in the arm, but still fire back. This game has a lot of realism, but it still balances it out with a 'fun factor.'
Age Of Empires: The designers of AoE always talk about how stuff like Catapults had to be changed. Originally, you needed someone to fire and move them, but it lead to too many problems, so they just made them self useable, and movable. Upon doing this, they felt the game flowed better, and the testers had more fun with the game.
I could go on, but I think "true realism" isn't what the gaming community wants. Games are a time when you can do stuff you normally wouldn't do...
Funny? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Don't Foget This One... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it, of course, but I disagree. Anyone who joins into a branch of the military expecting to be all action and intrigue and excitement is going to be disappointed, if what my friends in the service have told me is true. Sure, there certainly is some more "glamorous" things that happen, but unless I'm mistaken, you can also expect a hell of a lot of boredom. Again, if you feel that he was belittling the armed services, that's your perogative, but it's also my right to disagree with you. I didn't find anything at all insulting in the jokes, and I stand by that opinion.
As to your dig at moderation, does that mean that you have absolute control over what other people consider insightful, or interesting? If I find a post interesting and moderate it so, but you disagree, does that mean that the system doesn't work? If you're going to get pissed off about it, just wait until you've got some mod points of your own and then mod it down. That's the beauty of it - YOU control moderation as much as the next guy, so what are you complaining about?
Re:Missing the point yet again (Score:2, Insightful)
Invading Iraq to Keep Approval Rating High (Score:4, Insightful)
Iraq has a murderous dictator in charge who has waged genocide against his own people and is developing weapons of mass destruction. If we really were a country that believed in freedom and good will towards men, we would have bombed the shit out of Iraq years ago instead of letting millions die at the hands of Sadam.
Since people tend to believe in hollywood so much, just look back to Spider-man and the message that everyone was touting as being so grand, "Great power comes with great responsibility." We sure as hell have the power but we're just sitting around on our lazy asses so that we only have to pay $1.25 a galloon to drive the
Re:Please Explain....... (Score:4, Insightful)
Not that I'm particularly knocking the Army's training methods. I just think I'm very poorly suited to being a soldier.
Re:Don't Foget This One... (Score:2, Insightful)
The fact is, war's are not (usually) started by soldiers, and not (usually) started because soldiers want to fight them. So far as the western world and many other countries besides are concerned, wars are started by politicians. International support for wars is built up and lost by politicians. And yes, many politicians will like the idea of war if it gives them good ratings (though hopefully won't go so far as starting one for those reasons).
In short, the last of the 'joke' names was aimed at politicians rather more than soldiers, and politicians certainly deserve less respect.
Re:Don't Foget This One... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:You speak a very eloquent truth. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Army of One (Score:1, Insightful)
Thought for the day:
Re:Way to go (Score:2, Insightful)
That acronym expands to In My Humble Opinion. What is humble about a rant by an angry elitist? Try using IMNSHO next time. Besides, no soldier has defended any American's freedom since WWII:
Re:Gimme a break (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Iraq (Score:1, Insightful)
The USA has used weapons of mass destruction against civilian populations.
He ejected U.N. inspectors who were making sure he complied with the peace terms stating he wouldn't continue to develop WMDs including the Iraqi nuclear program.
The USA has unilaterally abandoned the treaty with Russia controlling the number of active nuclear warheads.
He has launched strikes on civilian populations in Israel during the Gulf War even though Israel was not part of the military coalition. He did this in the hopes invoking an Israeli response which would gain him the support of other Arab nations.
The USA supports Israel's attack against civilian populations in Palestine. There have also been occasions (Vietnam), where the US has done the same directly
Before deciding that the US is the "dispenser of justice" to the whole world, give a thought to these earlier actions.
Then maybe one gets an idea of why the US is disliked around the world, and hey
Re:Iraq (Score:1, Insightful)
Also, why was it that we stated we wanted to defend the free world and keep the world free from oppression when we wouldn't help opposition in Iraq. After we kicked him out of Kuwait many opposition groups came asking for our help and we denied them all. Kind of like how we denied Ho Chi Mihn help in defeating the french. Then what happened. He found help with from the Chinese and the USSR. Could've stopped the Vietnam before it ever happened. What a likely idea. We could've also stopped a lot of the oppression and probs with S.H. if we would've helped out the oppostition to him.
Next time we need to check our facts and do some research before we defend with stupidity.
See ya....
Re:Don't Foget This One... (Score:1, Insightful)
Except that yes, they do say that. If I have been reading different newspapers than you, it is because I make a point of checking out what the Arabic media is actually saying. See MEMRI [memri.org] for translations (a number of other groups have verified these translations, not least the New York Times), or see the english-language versions of various Arab papers (though several of them are much less extremist in english than in arabic).
Don't forget the Bin Laden tapes, either. Someone who is still complaining about the `tragedy of Andalusia (spain, 1492)' is not mad because of current US policy. Someone who considers the nature of US society to be evil is not making a policy judgement.
Sense of humor please (Score:2, Insightful)
Personally I got a kick out of the 'coming soon' titles, and didn't find them offensive at all. Of course, I'm not sensitive about the mess-hall crack because we don't get mess-hall-medals in the corps (*snicker*!).
While I appreciate the respect Zeddicus and Livin4Golf have for the military and those who serve, you guys have got to lighten up a little. There is a lot of mindless BS that goes along with serving - and no one likes to feel like they've sandbagged.
Ctimes2
Re:Iraq (Score:3, Insightful)
And why just attack Iraq? Iran and North Korea both have nuke programs. They're the Axis of Evil you know.
-B
Re:Hey, if you want realism who would know better? (Score:1, Insightful)
Yes the US causes friendly fire casualties or hits inappropriate targets when bombing but historically so does any army that sees a lot of action.
I am Canadian. I don't drink beer. I don't think this is funny. I do think the poster is a 'tard. I also don't blame America for killing our soldiers by accident. Just try to fix the problem so less Americans and allies/neutrals get killed by accident. And get rid of sociopaths who think it's funny.
This kind of make me sick... (Score:2, Insightful)
On another note, there doesn't seem to be very much information on the site:
While trying to retrieve the URL: http://www.americasarmy.com/
The following error was encountered:
* Connection Failed
The system returned:
(111) Connection refused
The remote host or network may be down. Please try the request again.
Re:Iraq (Score:2, Insightful)
Approval ratings for Bush could scarcely be higher. According to this poll [foxnews.com], currently 77% of Americans approve of the job Bush is doing while 15% do not. I don't see his approval ratings rising at all if we attack Iraq since it is known to be a controversial move. Maybe he's pushing it because (gasp!) he believes it would be the right thing to do.
X45A Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicle (Score:2, Insightful)
But as for these games, what better way to train people to control these vehicles than by getting young people to play them and master them in virtual form. Some day would you even know the difference if your networked war flight sim was really just a sim, or if the mission you thought you were flying virtually was actually being flown in some remote theater of battle.
If you really think about it has some very disturbing aspects. For one, imagine the level of detachment this allows a person. If you are flying a plane or driving a tank in the real world, seeing the innocent people living near your target might cause you to have second thoughts about hitting that target because you might kill innocents. But would you think twice about blowing up civilians in a game if that's what your mission called for? Probably not. It's just a game after all, right?
Now, of course if you knew the game you were playing was tied to events in reality, again, your morality might give you pause. But what if there was just a 1 in 100 chance that the events in the game were real. 1 in a 1000? At some point, you might stop worrying about it because you think it's just a game again. But imagine hundreds and thousands of 'soldiers' reporting for duty every day, with the only job being playing these war games for hours. It seems like a good way to commit acts that might be considered atrocities to the world without the moral and ethical concerns for the low level personnel.
It's kinda scary.
Re:Iraq (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh, Saddam wants to stop selling us oil, well let's kill the democratically elected Venezualan President and shut down OPEC.
Re:Iraq (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Don't Foget This One... (Score:3, Insightful)
In the Marine Corps, you ALL go in to fight.
Rank and job make no difference. You may all be pulled from regular duties to to go kick booty.
At least, that's what they always TOLD me.
(Good point though... hadn't thought about that before.)
I almost take offense at Roblimo referring to other services as inferior... but I won't. (You know, that's ALMOST a troll. And a good one at that.) I mean, he's an Army dog for chrissakes. He probably doesn't know any better.
Hell, I thought fellow Marines were the arrogant ones!
Anyway, remember, we've all got our purpose and things we're good at. We all save each other's asses all the time.
Want something bombed? A lot? Air Force.
Want the skies cleared? Air Force.
Need something moved fast? Air Force.
Need troops moved fast? Air Force.
Need an embargo or blockade? Navy.
Want the ocean safe? Navy.
Want an major intimidating display? Navy.
Need a LOT of stuff moved? Navy.
Need a LOT of troops moved? Navy.
Need a mobile base with some air power? Navy.
Need lots of guys with big guns? Army
Need tanks and artillery? Army.
Need to march in and take the place? Army.
Need a massive invasion? Army. (Marine assist.)
Need airborne gunships? Army.
Gonna be in the area for a while? Army.
Need a fine-combed search and destroy? Army.
-- whoops... I mean "sweep and clear".
Need a security team? Marines.
Need to distract attention from your main force? Marines.
Need an invasion? Marines. (Follow with Army.)
Need direct air support for ground troops? Marines.
Need everything everyone else has, but need it there RIGHT NOW? Marines.
Need everything, but on a smaller scale? Marines.
Have very specific needs? All have special forces units for special jobs of varying types. Pick your poison.