Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States Entertainment Games

On Training, Recruitment Uses For Army Games 274

Posted by simoniker from the you're-in-the-army-now dept.
wgrover writes "The New York Times Magazine (reg yada) has a new longform article exploring computer games funded for training/recruitment purposes by the U.S. military, as previously covered on Slashdot. 'For the past three years, the military has been entertaining the surprising idea that video games, even those that you play on a commercial system like Microsoft's Xbox, can be an effective way to train soldiers.' Aside from training, the games also improve young people's perceptions of the military: '30 percent of a group of young people with a favorable view of the military said they had developed that view from playing America's Army.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

On Training, Recruitment Uses For Army Games More

On Training, Recruitment Uses For Army Games

Comments Filter:

  • too generic name... (Score:3, Funny)

    by lawngnome ( 573912 ) on Sunday August 22, 2004 @02:39PM (#10038684)
    Americas army is too generic,ymra eht nioj would be much cooler! :)

  • What a surprise (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Timesprout ( 579035 ) on Sunday August 22, 2004 @02:41PM (#10038696)
    Aside from training, the games also improve young people's perceptions of the military:

    Yes, they get to play with cool weapons, kill people and all at no risk of injury or death to themselves. Isnt this the sort of image we should be getting away from, the old military is a fine career and war is a big glory opportunity?

    • Re:What a surprise (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 22, 2004 @02:45PM (#10038725)
      Considering how often one's character gets shot and/or dies in America's Army even when you're a relatively good player, I fail to see how it'd make me want to join the US Army (or any other, for that matter). ;)

    • Re:What a surprise (Score:5, Insightful)

      by general_re ( 8883 ) on Sunday August 22, 2004 @02:52PM (#10038771) Homepage
      Yes, they get to play with cool weapons, kill people and all at no risk of injury or death to themselves.

      You would prefer to send them into harm's way with no training or preparation for what they're going to encounter? If you Read The Fine Article, you'd see that the simulations under discussion are intended to train soldiers who are already likely to head to the CZ anyway, and I really can't fathom why someone would object to training that potentially allows them to do a better job by reducing the risks to themselves and to innocent civilians caught in the crossfire. Whether we care for it or not, the raison d'etre for a military in the first place is to fight when needed, and I can't fault them too terribly much for wanting to do their jobs as well and as safely as possible.

      • False dichotomy. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by khasim ( 1285 ) <brandioch.conner@gmail.com> on Sunday August 22, 2004 @03:25PM (#10038922)
        "You would prefer to send them into harm's way with no training or preparation for what they're going to encounter?"

        This isn't an either/or situation.

        A far better means of training is what we've been doing for years. One unit is assigned a task and another unit is assigned as OPFOR. That way, you don't get just what the programmer wrote.

        The problem is the situation briefly described in the article. We don't even have ammo for training because it is all going to the mid-East.

        The best way to train is to have combat units who have just rotated back be the OPFOR. The next best way is to have a unit that has played OPFOR regularly. Video game simulations are way, way down on the list.

        • Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)

          by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Sunday August 22, 2004 @03:54PM (#10039057)
          Comment removed based on user account deletion
        • The trouble is that live exercises like this are very expensive. As you point out, they can't even afford training ammo.

          This kind of simulation can supplement FTXs, even if it can't completely replace them.

          Sean

      • Re:What a surprise (Score:5, Insightful)

        by LGagnon ( 762015 ) on Sunday August 22, 2004 @03:27PM (#10038926)
        This isn't about training; it's about marketing. He was not talking about actual military personnel being trained; he was talking about the kids at home who are playing the game for fun. These people have not decided to go into the military yet, but are already being trained to see it as harmless play, when in truth it is far from that.

        • Re:What a surprise (Score:5, Insightful)

          by general_re ( 8883 ) on Sunday August 22, 2004 @06:45PM (#10039840) Homepage
          These people have not decided to go into the military yet, but are already being trained to see it as harmless play, when in truth it is far from that.

          Errr, so when it's GTA3, we vociferously object to anyone criticizing it - after all, it's "just a game" - but when it's a military simulation, we assume that same ability to differentiate between fantasy/simulation and reality is nowhere to be found?

          Not to say that you specifically do this, but speaking generally, you can't have it both ways - if people can understand why GTA3 and the like are not accurate reflections of reality, why assume that their critical faculties fail when presented with this?

          • Correct me if I'm wrong, but GTA3 wasn't commisioned and funded by violent criminals/dangerous drivers in order too improve their image.

      • Re:What a surprise (Score:5, Insightful)

        by gl4ss ( 559668 ) on Sunday August 22, 2004 @03:36PM (#10038962) Homepage Journal
        well the comment was more about the PERCEPTION of what military work is, the perception that the young people have is easily affected by games like americas army, military even having pr(MARKETING) staff for stuff like that is scary/useless enough. and yes, the whole point is to get the young people to 'join the navy' using pure marketing techniques, which is why they assist movies that display pentagon is good fashion too. now, if your (professional) army needs that kind of marketing to get people in.. well.. there's something wrong already then and the answer is not to confuse people into joining, that's not really how you find 'few good men'(but if you really need couple of trigger happy jocks then why not).

        and having played it for a while.. it's not like running around with a real assault rifle _at_ _all_, nor does it give you any fucking clue about what the military is really about. nice free game but that's it. it gives just an accurate view about the military as playing nintendo games gives about IT work.

      • The grandparent poster was responding to "the games also improve young people's perceptions of the military" as he had quoted.

        He was not saying that existing members of the military should not have better training, which this post seems premised on.

    • Re:What a surprise (Score:5, Insightful)

      by spangineer ( 764167 ) on Sunday August 22, 2004 @02:52PM (#10038775) Homepage
      Realistically, that's the image that soldiers need to have, in some respects. I've heard that the male brain doesn't fully mature until about the mid-twenties, and before this time, men are less capable of seeing the final consequences of their actions. I'm 20 myself, and I notice this all the time in my own life (and in my peers) - I think I'll be perfectly fine doing whatever, and I'm usually (but not always) right. The military needs people who are going to take risks, not those who are going to sit around weighing pros and cons while a battle is going on. If a low-class soldier thinks too much, he won't obey orders and battles will be lost. Risk is absolutely essential for anything of value to occur.

      Yes, these games probably promote inflated self-confidence, but that's not necessarily an entirely bad thing.

    • Former military perception (Score:5, Insightful)

      by bstarrfield ( 761726 ) on Sunday August 22, 2004 @02:53PM (#10038782)

      As an ex-infantry soldier - who's actually been in combat in the Middle East - these games have no relation to reality. Combat is hell, it's not a game .

      Some of my student employees - I work for a university - were playing America's Army. I watched them for a bit. Though they were not taken up by the adventure, I was still worried. You cannot simulate combat, you cannot simulate the smell, the fear. You can't even simulate basic training. These games are worse than a lie.

      I realize that the authors of America's Army have tried not to create yet another Quake - but in the end, that is the result. A nice, quick, sanitary view of military service. All of the excitement, none of the tedium or risks. If you want a real simulation of war, visit a VA hospital.

      But isn't this the whole point of the modern US military? Trying to convince the people back in the States that war is a distant, calculated situation, not something up close and dangerous. The Pentagon filters what people see on TV, refuses to show caskets coming home, refuses to discuss the wounded.

      Moder warfare is not clean. It requires a degree of courage which playing a video game cannot teach you. To make war trivial and fun is an incredible disservice to all who actually have to fight. Serving in the military is more than being part of an army of one and going to college for free. Though I'm proud to have served, it was terrible. I can't say anything more.

      • I thank you for your service.

        It is because of your sacrifices and the sacrifices of others like you that we have the freedom that we enjoy here in the states.

        I wish you all the best in life my friend. You deserve it, and more.

        wbs.

      • Re:Former military perception (Score:5, Insightful)

        by BoneFlower ( 107640 ) <anniethebruce@ g m a i l . c om> on Sunday August 22, 2004 @03:20PM (#10038904) Journal
        The point of the games is to teach tactics and teamwork. They aren't attempting to simulate the full reality of military life(haven't heard of any head cleaning games), but the can and do give a good exercise in basic tactics and teamwork in a system that the trainees can get into easily, and at far lower cost than a traditional exercise. That leaves the rest of the training budget to go to preparing for the rough realities of combat, rather than spending thousands just to teach them when to drop and have a firefight with an ambush party and when to just charge headlong into them.

        I agree they cannot teach everything about combat, but video games are well suited to teaching tactics and teamwork.

      • o make war trivial and fun is an incredible disservice to all who actually have to fight.

        This has been a requirement of all militaristic societies. War has always been glorified; look at the Illiad, or the Song of Roland. War stories and songs have been around for ages before war movies and war games.

        Don't try to point this as any sort of modern warfare, our current government is evil sort of scheme. The gap between civilian knowledge of warfare and the horrible reality has been a constant factor in th

        • This is just adapting the old ways to a new medium. And to be honest, I'd rather have kids who might go into combat getting that propaganda from something that encourages real teamwork and somewhat useful training than glorious tales of a single man killing hundreds. Any little thing that forces their mindset into something more useful is an improvement.

          Um... how about using the new medium to illustrate stories of how awful warfare is, in order to discourage the use?

          No, I don't fault the military for m

          • And then we'll all have a wonderful time when some other country, say, China, has gone the military route and decides that, hey, we don't need to listen to these american jerkoffs anymore, we can just *take* their stuff.

            As much as I would love world peace as much as the next person, the survival of our way of life requires some sort of military. And for the US, since "our way of life" includes being the richest nation in the world, preserving it requires a huge military. At the very least, big enough that
            • Comment removed based on user account deletion
              • Yes, and firebombing Tokyo and Dresden were therefore purely defensive actions?

                We didn't enter World War II because of Pearl Harbor, just as we didn't invade Iraq because of 9/11. Both events were catalysts that allowed those in power to do what they had wanted to do all along.

                While I agree completely that World War II was more directly in our best interests (Iraq, vietnam, and afghanistan was just a dumb thing to drag ourselves into), saying we shouldn't attack anyone who hasn't launched an amphibious as
      • Though I'm proud to have served...

        Why, exactly? What did you do? Or to be more precise, what was the ultimate purpose of your actions? I'm curious, not trolling.
      • No disrespect to your service, but you're saying that -- in order to get people to join the military -- we should present it in the worst light possible?

        I don't think you have a balanced view of America's Army (the game). Have you noticed how often you die playing that game? Or how the teams are always exactly evenly balanced? Those are unrealistic aspects of the game too, but I don't hear you complaining about them. I'm guessing that's because those particular defects show military service in a nega
    • Yes, they get to play with cool weapons, kill people and all at no risk of injury or death to themselves. Isnt this the sort of image we should be getting away from, the old military is a fine career and war is a big glory opportunity?

      very right.
      one can easily feel all the glory sitting in cozy apartment with cold drinks by side, jamming furiously on the keypad. But are they learning to be the symbol of authority, or those frustrating guys I find enacting cartoons?

      Never having faced a real puch in your li

    • Re:What a surprise (Score:5, Interesting)

      by furball ( 2853 ) on Sunday August 22, 2004 @03:18PM (#10038898) Journal
      There's more to training soldiers than simply shooting. Take a look at games like SOCOM or Full Spectrum Warrior. The focus is less on the ability to put cursor over target and press button and more on active thinking in analyzing a situation.

      For example, with FSW you command a full 8 man team. You give orders and control fire zones. You don't target anything. There is a lag between the time the order is issued and the troops respond. You also don't control explicitly where they go. You instruct destinations and the troops figure out how to best achieve that. If you plan badly and walk them through a crossfire you have dead troops. It's real simple.

      How do you mount an assault down an alley that's covered with a RPG on one end with elevation and infantry on the sides when your team of 8 is on the opposite end and has to make their way down said alley without casualty? You use everything you know.

      Combat is primarily problem solving. The solutions are fairly well known. How do you apply those well known solutions when the scenario is a total curve ball?

      If you think military training games are purely FPS, you don't know anything about how the military works.
      • How do you mount an assault down an alley that's covered with a RPG on one end with elevation and infantry on the sides when your team of 8 is on the opposite end and has to make their way down said alley without casualty?

        Usually it's easy to avoid RPGs and makes it harder for you opponent to snipe you when you jump around non-stop on the battle field.

  • No one likes to register for news. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by DroopyStonx ( 683090 ) on Sunday August 22, 2004 @02:41PM (#10038701)

    The Making of an X Box Warrior

    It was only a virtual Baghdad, baking under a virtual sun. As in real life, though, troops were dodging gunfire. I was at the Institute for Creative Technologies in Marina Del Rey, Calif., playing a new X box video game called Full Spectrum Warrior. Leading eight men in an Army squad on a patrol of the war-torn city, I got a taste, however approximate, of why Iraq is such a hard place to be a soldier these days. My job, as squad leader, was to order my soldiers where to go and what to do. First, I sent half of my men into an alleyway, where they immediately came under fire from insurgents hiding nearby. Scrambling for safety, I ordered us to duck into a building, pausing to marvel at the detail of the architecture. I then led us back out onto the street, directing my team to crouch behind a car while we tried to locate the snipers. This was a bad idea. Despite what you see in action movies and other video games, cars do not provide good cover from bullets. The snipers cut loose, and my troops crumpled to the ground. It was surprisingly distressing. In barely three minutes, I had led every single one of my soldiers to his death.

    I play video games regularly and, modesty aside, usually do quite well. Though this was my first attempt at Full Spectrum Warrior, the reason that I played poorly was not that I was inexperienced but that the game was not designed solely for entertainment. Full Spectrum Warrior was created by the Institute for Creative Technologies, with help from the Army, to teach soldiers realistic strategies for surviving what the armed forces call ''military operations in urban terrain.'' As a result, the game is unforgivingly precise. The soldiers you command are programmed to respond the way a real soldier would. There are no magic weapons to bail you out. All you have going for you is the real world. ''This is what you'll really see when you're out there,'' said Maj. Brent Cummings, a soldier then stationed at Fort Benning, Ga., who worked as a consultant on the game and walked me through it.

    For the past three years, the military has been entertaining the surprising idea that video games, even those that you play on a commerical system like Microsoft's Xbox, can be an effective way to train soldiers. In fact, the Army is now one of the industry's most innovative creators, hiring high-end programmers and designers from Silicon Valley and Hollywood to devise and refine its games. Some of these games are action-packed, like Full Spectrum Warrior. Others, like one that the military's Special Operations Command is currently designing to help recruits practice their Arabic, are less so. All the games, however, speak to the military's urgent need to train recruits for the new challenges of peacekeeping efforts in places like Iraq.

    Teaching someone to be an accurate shot is not particularly hard to do. Military trainers have learned that if you put someone through a week of intensive work with a point-and-shoot simulator (not unlike today's commerically available shoot-'em-up video games), he will be reasonably good with a rifle. Teaching judgment, however, is much harder than teaching hand-eye coordination. Today's military is in the market for games that train soliders, in effect, how not to shoot -- how to avoid conflict whenever possible, to recognize danger and find a route around it. As a squad leader in Full Spectrum Warrior, you do not even carry a gun that fires, which makes it the first military-action video game in which the player never discharges a weapon.

    Some skeptics worry that if the military's games are not realistic enough, they will encourage bad habits and incorrect strategy -- tactics that work on the screen but get soldiers killed on the battlefield. It is certainly true that many video games for sale in stores would be disastrous for training and would trivialize a task that is literally a matter of life and death. James Korris, the creative director of the Institute for Creative Technologies, said that he once anal

  • Marine Doom (Score:5, Interesting)

    by th1ckasabr1ck ( 752151 ) on Sunday August 22, 2004 @02:41PM (#10038703)
    Was Marine Doom [cmu.edu] the first example of using a video game as a military training tool or does something predate it?

    • Re:Marine Doom (Score:3, Informative)

      by Attackman ( 95672 )
      Atari's Battlezone appears to be the first example. Released to arcades in 1980, this 3D-esque vector graphics tank simulator was a quarter-guzzling favorite of many- including the US Army. Years before having their own FPS, the Army comissioned special versions of Battlezone to train their tank pilots. This article [1up.com] discusses the game and touches on it's millitary connection.

    • Re:Marine Doom (Score:3, Funny)

      by "Zow" ( 6449 )
      does something predate it?

      How about The Last Starfighter [imdb.com]?

  • Games can only do so much (Score:3, Insightful)

    by x-naga ( 804013 ) on Sunday August 22, 2004 @02:42PM (#10038714) Journal
    Games do develope a lot of good skills, eye coordination, aiming, and so on and so forth. But nothing beats the real experience. You can have a soldier that's been training on games for a long time but the second he's on the battlefield, he could be the first to go because of lack of experience.
    • Aiming? The mechanics of moving a mouse so that what you want to kill is in the center of your screen is far from something I would classify as teaching "aiming". Pointing a gun at something is the easiest part. Then there's breath control (No, AA:O's "breathing" does not count), stance, and most importantly (and hardest to master), trigger control. As much as I played video games, it did absolutely nothing for my ability to aim a rifle or pistol. Only through practice with the actual weapons would you get
      • When I was in in the mid nineties, we had a nes with a m-16 shaped light rifle. of course it wasn't going to simulate the whole thing if you went into it acting like it was Duck hunt. Instead, the point was for you to ACT like it was the real thing. That meant going through the motions. It wasn't about teaching you aiming, but rather getting you into the practice of going through the steps involved, so that when you fired the real thing, you focused less on the mechanics of firing, because it had already be
        • The hardest thing was getting people to UNLEARN the bad habits they had acquired.

          Practice does NOT make perfect.

          Perfect practice makes perfect.

          If you are practicing with a simulator, you will be practicing the flaws of that simulator. The "mechanics" of shooting are simple and can be taught in 5 minutes (correct position, aim, breathing, trigger squeeze).

          But mastering them so that you do it correctly every time is what takes practice and REAL bullets.

          "You can't be on the rifle range every night, but if

  • The #1 Army simulator already on your machine (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Solitare. Teaches a soldier how to hurry up and wait.

  • Study concludes... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MrDomino ( 799876 ) <.mrdomino. .at. .gmail.com.> on Sunday August 22, 2004 @02:43PM (#10038717) Homepage
    Like much else, brainwashing starts in the home.

    • Re:Study concludes... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 22, 2004 @03:01PM (#10038821)
      One of the problems in training a soldier has always been getting him to be willing to kill someone without hesitation. The more you can make the experience like a video game, the easier it is. If you can't see the face of an actual human and identify with him then you don't feel like you are actually killing a real person.

      I have recently seen Farenheit 9/11. There were interviews with tank crews in Iraq. They build the tanks so the soldiers can pipe music over the communication system. The soldiers pump themselves up and kill anything that moves enemy or not. They also showed what looked like infrared targeting. Again, anything with a heat signature got blasted.

      All of this is OK if everyone is an enemy. This is not OK if most of the people you encounter are unarmed civilians. Also it sucks to fight along with the Yanks if you are, for instance, a Canadian (in Afghanistan). It seems like the Americans kill more of your soldiers than the enemy does.

      I really think the Brits have it right. They are much more likely to treat people as humans. Mind you they have a lot more experience dealing with terrorists.

      Video game trained soldiers make fine berserkers.
      • Can they pipe music over the comm system of the tanks? Yes. Were they build for the express purpose of blasting Slayer and Metallica so that the soldiers would get juiced up and ready to kill? No. It's just an auxiliary line in. You'd be surprised at what a bored combat soldier will rig up for entertainment in their vehicle or bivouac.

        The thermal targeting system is precise enough to allow for vehicle identification. Different vehicles put off different images. Some vehicles get hot at the axle of
    • Yeah it sucked, but does anyone remember the Robin William's movie Toy's? The whole plot was about the military using a toy company to create video games which would develop skills useful in the military. It sounded farcical 12 years ago.
    • Like much else, brainwashing starts in the home.

      So is that what happened to you?

  • Sea Control and RTS (Score:2, Insightful)

    by kryonD ( 163018 )
    I would tend to concur with this. Not only is the simple task of understanding resource management easily put forth in these games, but so far every RTS game I have played has held true with historical warfare in the fact that, whoever controls the primary trade routes, will eventually become the global superpower. In the context of history, this implies sea control. Things get a little more hairy when you add aviation to the picture, but contolling the skies also hold a powerful advantage.

    FPS games are

  • Can't have it both ways (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Tlosk ( 761023 ) on Sunday August 22, 2004 @02:43PM (#10038720)
    So if simulation hones skills and makes later real life training more effective, breeding filial feelings and approval, why would it only apply in ostensibly positive situations?

    Why would this not apply just as much to Grand Theft Auto and its ilk?

  • Ammunition to video game opponents? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 22, 2004 @02:44PM (#10038722)
    Does this give ammunition to the argument that video games promote violence?
  • Naturally, for the recruitment part of it, they really only care if the interesting parts are represented well. If somebody designed a completely realistic game representation of the Vietnam war, people who played through it wouldn't want to go into the army at all. Shoot, kill, reload from last savepoint if you die.

  • Newsflash! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by th0mas.sixbit.org ( 780570 ) on Sunday August 22, 2004 @02:46PM (#10038734)
    This just in: Propaganda is effective. Now to Bill for the weather.
  • In a further attempt to pretend that war is easy and non-violent, the Army has finally done it! Make kids think that being in war is cool, just like a video game, that they can restart, people don't "really die," it's all about "eye-controller" coordination, etc. Give the recruits these superhuman expectations, and they will make wonderful soldiers- since all of their training is based on reality.

  • Played AA since release (Score:5, Informative)

    by boschmorden ( 610937 ) on Sunday August 22, 2004 @02:48PM (#10038742)
    It's a cool game and pretty one of the most realistic FPS games I've seen. Some of the unique things about the game:

    * There are official servers run by the Army where you gain "honor" for completing missions and killing people. Negative honor is given by shooting your teammates or civilians. This is a good way to see what kind of people you're playing against.

    * In order to use special guns, or even to become "Special Forces" you must go through extensive training in single player mode and then sometimes even have a minimum honor to use X gun or Y skill. For instance, to become a medic you must sit in a virtual classroom and learn how to perform CPR, treat shock and bandage players. Once you have this certification you can then become a medic in game and stop people's bleeding (if you don't treat a player they sometimes bleed tod eath).

    The AA team just released it's final update for the next year in June, and next year will support driving vehicles and more missions. Overall it's fun and exciting and I recommend it to anyone who likes to play modern day first person shooters. Sometimes it may seem a little slow but you just gotta be patient. Going through the training is boring but it actually does teach you stuff.

    • It's a cool game and pretty one of the most realistic FPS games I've seen

      So, I would have to assume you have real-life experience walking through mazes and shooting stuff before it kills you? After all, how could you determine the level of 'reality' in a game, if you do not have real experience to compare it to? If this is not the case, you are still comparing it to a fantasy of what you beleive real combat to be like.

      If it does not happen in the REAL WORLD, it is still a simulation -- a fantasy. Eve

  • Rude Awakening... (Score:5, Funny)

    by ktakki ( 64573 ) on Sunday August 22, 2004 @02:48PM (#10038744) Homepage Journal
    I can imagine the disappointment of anyone who enlists with the expectation that service in the armed forces is anything like a video game. Sorry, kid: no aimbots, no wall-hacks, not everyone gets a sniper rifle, and if you bunny-hop on a 30 mile march once more the drill sargeant will take you behind the barracks for some wall-to-wall discipline.

    What we really need are some mods for America's Army, like AA: KP and Latrine Duty or AA: Abu Ghraib.

    k.

    • Re:Rude Awakening... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by FooAtWFU ( 699187 )
      From what I gather goes on in America's Army, not everyone DOES get a sniper-rifle, and there's a significant amount of training you need to work at in order to get your account in order. It's not quite drop-and-give-me-20, but it's not Doom or Half-Life, either.
      • it's not really training, it's just a short singleplayer stage before you get to play online - not significant at all. highly annoying but some other games could use a system like that as well...

        and personally, operation flashpoint seemed more realistic(apart from the tanks) than AA.

        and just mentioning that it's anything like the real thing means you haven't really been even to the supermarket..

      • Re:Rude Awakening... (Score:2, Informative)

        by immel ( 699491 )
        Plus in AA you can't jump all the time, either. You get about one or two good jumps and then all your subsequent jumps are shorter and shorter.

        The training actually serves a useful purpose in FPS games, because it makes sure that there are no complete noobs asking "how do I shoot?" or "HELP! I can't move!".

    • Re:Rude Awakening... (Score:2, Informative)

      by Neomar ( 773009 )
      Or AA: Guarding Facilities
      I remember from my duty that there's nothing as stressful and annoying as guarding a building for a shift of 8 hours, and of course, nothing happens at all during this time. If something happens, you're dead, because you became too bored and didn't pay attention anymore.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
      Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • 'Sorry, kid: no aimbots, no wall-hacks"

      You know...not to ruin the joke or anything, but our current weapons targeting and imaging technology pretty much DOES give us aimbots and wall-hacks. And in real life, its not considered cheating, and nobody will call you a lame ass noob for using it because they'll be dead.

    • Re:Rude Awakening... (Score:4, Funny)

      by ndogg ( 158021 ) <the@rhorn.gmail@com> on Sunday August 22, 2004 @05:01PM (#10039385) Homepage Journal
      Imagine their surprise when they try to do a rocket jump...

  • In the near future in a desert far far away... (Score:5, Funny)

    by immel ( 699491 ) on Sunday August 22, 2004 @02:51PM (#10038766)
    A soldier sees another soldier standing in one place behind some rocks, looking very tense and pointing a SAW into the distance.

    Says one soldier to the other: "What the hell are you doing!?

    The reply: "I'm camping their spawn point!"

    oops...team kill! My bad!
  • I hope this gets millions of kiddies to join the Army. I think everyone on Slashdot should sign up, too. Good luck!

    *slaps you on ass as you board bus to training camp*

    With a fully staffed Army, I can sit here and be a fat, happy American and watch you all fight wars on my Tee Vee, and not worry about a Draft. Have fun!

  • What, did they leave out the torture (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Aside from training, the games also improve young people's perceptions of the military: '30 percent of a group of young people with a favorable view of the military said they had developed that view from playing America's Army.'"

    Whoa. Did they include the part about leading POWs around naked on a leash and falsifying death certificates to hush up torture? I mean, shouldn't a computer game give you the whole fun of being in uniform?

  • the army had a custom version of Battlezone made up to be a tank trainer.

    see for details/rumor [klov.com]

  • favorable vs. unfavorable. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 22, 2004 @03:09PM (#10038852)
    this distinction of military, "favorable vs. unfavorable", is kind of bullshit.

    the military follows orders. it's the orders, from the pentagon and the white house, that roll downhill, that give the military such a reputation.

    the people in the field rely on trust, teamwork and training--things that pretty much everyone depends on in their day-to-day life. the orders sometimes make them roll their eyes.

    i'm gonna give you a long-winded example of what i'm talking about. in the news lately there has been a heated discussion about "atrocities committed in war" and whether "outing" tales of atrocities denigrates the warfighter.

    my pop was a US WW2 carrier pilot around japan. as the war winded down, the "offical rules" from washington and the pentagon were "do not engage non-military targets unless fired upon" (i'm paraphrasing).

    so my pop had to fly his plane down to fishing boats and stuff, overfly them, to see if they would shoot at him, before he would open up with his machine guns and kill them.

    now, another pilot on the carrier got shot down doing this. immediately, the unspoken agreement among the pilots was "sink anything in your search area"--don't bother checking it out anymore.

    this was an illegal act. not all fishing boats were armed resistance, but he and the other pilots stopped checking them out. they just started sinking them, in fact anything that moved in his search area was a fair target from that point forward. he wanted to live, not get killed from a "lucky" shot, from some guy hiding under a tarp on a fishing boat.

    later, the same thing happened over land. he started strafing groups of civilians, because, early on, he would get shot at from the groups.

    so now the questions are:

    1) did same or similar things happen in vietnam?

    2) do you really have to check out every boat, every crowd, putting your life on the line, when you damn well know what could be coming?

    3) does washington and the pentagon make this shit up to cover their ass from a strictly legal point of view, while shifting the blame for anything that goes bad down to the fighters?

    I already know the answers to these questions for myself (yes, no, yes).

    A lot of people get pissed about number 2) saying you have to obey all orders and die on the field from a lucky shot, that's the way it goes in the military. it's called orders and discipline.

    if you get caught, your career is shot; you probably go to military prison. if you keep checking out every boat and crowd up close, you die. the coice is simply one to be made. sometimes

    sometimes i see news shots from iraq showing a gunbattle in the street, and kids and adults are standing outside, in the street, watching. ever hear of a ricochet? i wish i kept those pictures, just to send them to people who talk about the poor innocents dying in iraq. here's a lesson--when the shooting starts, get your ass inside!

    in iraq, how would you like to be the guys going in an searching houses for suspects? total dependence on teamwork, training and trust. i suspect most of our dead in iraq are from "lucky" shots out of nowhere.

  • in related news "pwned" now standard military term (Score:5, Funny)

    by atarione ( 601740 ) on Sunday August 22, 2004 @03:10PM (#10038856)
    the army reports soldiers now routinely complain "teams" and "crappy map" and even sometimes complain about "lag" while in the field.

    but mainly the use of the word? "pwned" is almost universal in combat.

  • I seem to remember Marine Doom coming out shortly before I enlisted. That was 1996.

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Sunday August 22, 2004 @03:16PM (#10038887)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Aside from training, the games also improve young people's perceptions of the military

    How can one person's perception of the military be "better" than another's? Presumably if it's closer to reality, not necessarily more favourable. So I'm guessing the games do the exact opposite.

  • Inevitable..? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Vlad_Drak ( 20809 ) on Sunday August 22, 2004 @03:29PM (#10038933)
    With drones such as the Predator seeing lots of action (which are now armed), and iRobots out in the field (not armed yet), it is only a matter of time before humans remotely control a significant portion of our military might. Sure, you have to worry about securing the control channels and there are lots of bits and pieces that need to get worked out.

    Most of technology is already there, it just needs to mature a bit, let's say 5-10 years. DARPA should have set the Grand Challenge rules so that vehicles could be remotely controlled, with hundred of test targets all over that get tagged by lasers or something similar.

    The army would be smart to collect gameplay data from America's Army, etc. I found it curious that I had to submit my training scores to the AA servers before I could even play the game, but maybe I'm just paranoid. It's doubtful that the Army has some grand plan here, but there are definately many who get it. Basically, the Army could recruit the most skilled operators/players, and lots of people would probably be more likely to serve their country in front of a virtual screen as opposed to seeing real combat.

    Is it too out there to assume that the gamers who clean up in today's FPS and FSims may find yourself being drafted by the military one day...?

    Of the obstacles to be overcome to make remote combat operations, it would seem most are straight-forward to overcome with time.
    How do you go up stairs and handle rough terrain? How about a helibot? Take a remote controlled model helicopter, stick on a few cameras, various sensors, GPS, etc. Very much like today's FPS, it seems to me.

    • ...it is only a matter of time before humans remotely control a significant portion of our military might.

      If in addition to remote-controlled systems, you include autonomous ones, we're halfway there. Think Tomahawk land-attack missiles. The MK 46/48/50 torpedoes. Phalanx Close-in Weapons Systems. All of these, to one extent or another, only require a human being to turn them on and (maybe) point them in the right direction.

      People talk about the time when robots do our fighting for us... not realizing t

  • Final Fantasy X-3 - America's Army (Score:4, Funny)

    by HarveyBirdman ( 627248 ) on Sunday August 22, 2004 @03:30PM (#10038937) Journal
    Yuna: Kilika, shit, I'm still only in Kilika. Every time I think I'm gonna wake up back in the Macalania Woods. Been here a week now, waiting for a sidequest, getting softer. Every minute I stay in this room, I get weaker, and every minute the fiends squat in the bush, they get stronger.

    ---

    Rikku: How many people had I already killed? There was those 70,000 hit points worth that I know about for sure. Close enough to blow their last breath in my face. But this time it was an Al Bhed and an officer. That wasn't supposed to make any difference to me, but it did. Shit... charging a man with murder in this place was like handing out speeding tickets in Grand Turismo. I took the mission. What the hell else was I gonna do?

    ---

    Paine: Zero through nine, no maybes, no supposes, no fractions. You can't do hit point damage, you can't go out into the world map, you know, with, like, you know, uh, with fractions - what are you going to hit with - one-quarter, three-eighths? What are you going to do when you go from here to Bevelle or something? That's integer RPG math.

    ---

    Tidus: You smell that? Do you smell that?... Firaga spells, son. Nothing else in the world smells like that. I love the smell of firaga spells in the morning. You know, one time we had a hill hit with Bahamut summons, for twelve hours. When it was all over I walked up. We didn't find one of 'em, not one stinkin' fiend body. The smell, you know that brimstone smell, the whole hill. Smelled like... a level up. Someday this cut scene's gonna end...

  • how long before some kids try to pull another columbine-type thing, this time implementing the tactics they've learned by playing America's Army, or Full Spectrum Warrior, making their attack far more deadly?
    • Or just strap explosives to themselves and hop on the school bus.

      There's plenty of sources of inspiration in this world.

  • Add a touch of reality (Score:4, Insightful)

    by nanoakron ( 234907 ) on Sunday August 22, 2004 @03:39PM (#10038976)
    Does the latest version include the Abu Ghraib expansion pack?

    You can mod me as flame-bait but this is what new recruits need to know - the consequences of their actions, and indeed the decision to go to war itself, in the eyes of an international audience.

    -Nano.

  • All our little Starship Troopers (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Zhe Mappel ( 607548 ) on Sunday August 22, 2004 @03:45PM (#10039005)
    Ah, if we were only going off to kill giant bugs! Then what fun it would be training for more war!

    Unfortunately, US foreign policy in the era of preemptive invasions calls for attacking resource-rich nations that pose no threat to us. That's a different thing, morally, from blasting bugs. It's wrong, as 90% of the planet knows.

    The mental candy of video games can help to sweeten this awful task. If you look even casually at the top-selling shooters, they're nearly all war games that put the white American soldier-player in the heroic role of killing black, brown and yellow-skinned peoples to "stop terrorism," or "fight for freedom," or any of the other popular cant that our drooling politicians preach. These games are rehearsal chambers for more than killing technique: they incubate a poisonous right wing sensibility, the stuff of America Uber Alles that has plunged us into a senseless and unwinnable war in Iraq.

    From the White House to FOX TV to your X-Box: that is the new slipstream of fascism. Because there's money in it. Because it's fun--until, of course, the Wal-Mart job isn't cutting it and, with all the skills you've honed playing America's Army, you sign up for the National Guard gig to make ends meet, and sooner or later find yourself shooting women and children in a real desert.

    Mommas (and daddies), don't let your babies grow up to be cowboys.

  • 1. the US military has been using video games for a while to convince people to do things. When I was in high school 6 years ago my friends brother was recruited into the army with the promise that if he signed up five of his friends he'd get either a Playstation or a N64 (i forget which) and five games.

    needless to say he couldn't sign up five friends, and got nothing but a few years of military service, and for all i know is in iraq now.

    2. as the computer technology for all modern combat increases

  • Old News (Score:4, Funny)

    by GeekFu ( 166509 ) on Sunday August 22, 2004 @04:06PM (#10039121)
    "You have been recruited by the Star League to defend the frontier against Xur and the Ko-Dan Armada"

    Prior art? :-)
  • Or maybe they saw it!

    . [imdb.com]

    Nice movie (at least when you are under 12 as I was in the moment it was shown). Was one or the first movies with CGI spaceships (done in SGI or Cray, don't remember).

  • I cleared all the mines ! (Score:5, Funny)

    by 88NoSoup4U88 ( 721233 ) on Sunday August 22, 2004 @05:19PM (#10039457)
    I cleared all the mines in Minesweeper! Where can i sign up ?!

  • The Last Starfighter (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Dan East ( 318230 ) on Sunday August 22, 2004 @07:14PM (#10039992) Journal
    Reminds me of the 80's movie The Last Starfighter (which I rather liked). A league of aliens seeded the habitized planets of the galaxy with video games to find potential candidates to pilot ships to defend the galaxy from a common enemy.

    A rogue recruiter put the video games on Earth, which was not an active planetary member of the league (we're too primitive and all that). Yet a teen proved to be so good at the game (he "won" it) that he was drafted to help defend our galaxy.

    Dan East

  • Al-qaeda, terrorists, gang-bangers... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ninejaguar ( 517729 ) on Monday August 23, 2004 @01:53AM (#10042036)
    Does anyone else find the fact that Bin-Ladel can now train his teenage suicide squads in tactics and teamwork without leaving their sleeper-cells a little disturbing? Not that they couldn't have done it with Quake, but this brings some realism to the matter.

    = 9J =

Slashdot Top Deals

It is easier to write an incorrect program than understand a correct one.

Close