Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
First Person Shooters (Games) United States Entertainment Games

Army to use MMOG for Simulation Training 318

Posted by michael from the extra-life dept.
Anonymous Coward writes "Military Training Technology (online edition) has an interesting article, 'The End Game', containing revelations about a Research, Development and Engineering Command project 'that is as timely as the nightly news' - a Massively Multiplayer Simulation for Asymmetric Warfare, or simply MMP: 'essentially a virtual world [developed by There Inc.] intended to train soldiers well beyond the goals of war gaming'."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Army to use MMOG for Simulation Training More

Army to use MMOG for Simulation Training

Comments Filter:

  • Ymra Eht Nioj (Score:5, Funny)

    by SugoiMonkey ( 648879 ) on Friday January 16, 2004 @07:04PM (#8003800) Homepage Journal
    You have died. Click fire to respawn.

    "Man, this army thing is fun!"

    • Re:Ymra Eht Nioj (Score:5, Funny)

      by Mod Me God ( 686647 ) on Friday January 16, 2004 @07:10PM (#8003863)
      Maybe, or will this create an army of crack GIs that enter a war zone and start running about killing rats and frogs to gain experience, only to spend days/weeks/months in the Bard/Ironsmith Guild perfecting their song/hammering in a treehouse/cave?
    • ...instead of blowing $32 million to develop a proprietary version?

      No wonder we're running a half-trillion dollar deficit...

    • I'm For It (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Simonetta ( 207550 )
      We, the USA, and the rest of the world spend far too much money on military affairs. Every year it just gets worse.

      The purpose of the military is to protect the local country from invasion from other countries and their armies.

      The Americans have 20000 nuclear bombs, no one is going to invade them, no one is even going to get close to invading and occupying them.

      They don't need a military any more!! Yet they spend tons of their money on this unnecessary endeavor. It is really warping their mind

  • The End[er] Game (Score:5, Funny)

    by GNUman ( 155139 ) on Friday January 16, 2004 @07:05PM (#8003806)
    Is that a reference to Ender's Game?

  • SimWar. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by vkg ( 158234 ) on Friday January 16, 2004 @07:05PM (#8003808) Homepage
    Well, on one hand, this might be a really good idea: train people to think in new ways, provoke discussion and innovation, and generally have a place for people to make their dumb mistakes before they go out into the field.

    On the other hand, let's not forget one of the big dangers of simulator training is that people often get very attuned to artefacts in the simulator, and then in the real world get their ass handed to them.

    Great if it works. But if it turns out more over-enthusiastic rookies with unrealistic simulator expectations, people are going to get killed.

    • Re:SimWar. (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      But if it turns out more over-enthusiastic rookies with unrealistic simulator expectations, people are going to get killed
      Umm maybe you aren't too clear on the job of a soldier?? If it works, a lot more people are going to get killed than from it not working. They will be "enemies" though, so you probably don't care about them dying. Just remember how quickly a friend can become your enemy.
      • Where one side has a huge advantage, usually the war is swift, people surrender, and all's well. Put 'em in a camp, feed them, send them home.

        The first Gulf War broke those rules, because we massacred 150 - 300, 000 retreating troops.

        But, in general, I'd rather our soliders were well equipt, capable, and used wisely, rather than being poorly equpt, careless and used for imperialist aggression.

        A strong American military is why Hitler and Stalin didn't wind up ruling the world, and don't forget it. Yes,

        • Re:The worst wars are evenly matched. (Score:4, Insightful)

          by king-manic ( 409855 ) on Friday January 16, 2004 @07:43PM (#8004097)
          News flash:
          A strong Russian military and resource starved germany is why Hitler and Stalin didn't wind up ruling the world, and don't forget it.
          Russia always strogn and The british caused the second condition. america helped with the second condition but mostly supplied resources and came in after to claim victory. The americans were important but not the #1 or #2 reason that the war was won.

          Now a Strong American army is why we don't all have a mad itch to play pokemon and watch tentacle porn..... omg... Did we lose the pacific theatre?

        • Re:The worst wars are evenly matched. (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward
          In just about any Western-style war (since classical times) it is typical that retreating troops will be attacked to the extent that it is possible.

          Traditionally, the big no-no is to attack troops that have surrendered. But retreating guys are generally considered "fair game", especially since anyone who is not surrendering may just be regrouping to attack you again.

          What was different about the Gulf War was that the US's overwhelming advantage meant the retreating Iraqi forces could be (and were) utt
        • Make sure you know the difference.
    • You do realize that training involves more than just simulator practice, right?
    • "These are real people--retired military, paramilitary or paid contractors. When necessary, the exercises will be password protected," Grosse continued, indicating its seriousness.

      I know where we can find the real trouble makers... here. You know that a bunch of the slashdot trolls would play excellent suicide bombers! They (errr....we?) destroy personal slashdpt accounts all the time to stir up fun and mayham.

      Honestly, the internet is a great place to find interesting and creative people to challenge
    • provoke discussion and innovation

      They could even release on a GPL and then no state would have any advantage in waging war and world would live in peace. Hoorah for open source, saviour of mankind.

    • Re:SimWar. (Score:2, Interesting)

      by TyrranzzX ( 617713 )
      And what happens if the soldiers turn out to be too good? I don't like the war in iraq, and the only good reason we haven't seen more protests (as if there weren't enough already) is because of the relativally low casualty rate. Look at the casualty rate on the iraqi side, tens of thousands of people have been killed, for our 500 losses so far. Even though most of the iraqi army never mobilized and was ordered to surrender or run in circles without cover, you've still got to wonder at what point does a s

  • So all my FPS playing make me military material? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by killthiskid ( 197397 ) on Friday January 16, 2004 @07:06PM (#8003814) Homepage Journal

    From the article:

    It is generally accepted that immersive simulations form the gateway to training the armies of the future. The MMP is a bold new thrust in that direction, and it's very similar to the massively multiplayer role-playing game concept common in the commercial world.

    So those many, many hours I've spent on Doom, Quake, Quake2, Quake3, etc... can help make me a worthwhile soldier?

    Hmm... having served in the military, I suppose it may be true.

    The concepts of good cover, working as a team, knowing what your weapon can/can't do...

    It makes sense. Aircraft pilots learn in a simulator, why not soldiers?

    Maybe this is why my friends and I are good at paintball... cover me... go, go, go!

  • We already knew (Score:3, Informative)

    by Ponderoid ( 311576 ) on Friday January 16, 2004 @07:06PM (#8003816)
    There addicts have known about this for months. [there.com]

  • The problem with this is... (Score:5, Funny)

    by spudthepotatofreak ( 649917 ) on Friday January 16, 2004 @07:06PM (#8003821)
    There's no quad-damage in the real world... bummer.

  • The state of the US military (Score:5, Funny)

    by g4sy ( 694060 ) on Friday January 16, 2004 @07:07PM (#8003835) Homepage
    great, now we're gonna have every geek/nerd/whatever (i forgot the difference) signing up for the us military. the gamers corps

  • what about RTS games? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by 7-Vodka ( 195504 )
    I've always wondered why the army didnt use RTS-like interfaces to control their troops in things like the iraq war. Select the units, choose the formation, right click on the target whatever.

  • Games... are well... games (Score:5, Interesting)

    by OriginalSpaceMan ( 695146 ) on Friday January 16, 2004 @07:10PM (#8003866)
    When I play Couter-Strike, or BattleField, I don't care if I die. I just spawn back in next round. I may try to take the game "seriously" for about 5 minutes, but then I just go komikaze into the field running and spraying. What happens when soilders don't take their lives seriously after battle "simulation" for 6 weeks straight? It goes the same for me when I play paintball... it's all serious, until I try and rambo it up a notch and end up with a new multi-colored ass. It's something for phsyciatric stundy, imho.
    • Heh, well, if they do that after 6 weeks of training, then they probably aren't the type of person the military needs as a soldier. I'd doubt they'd go straight from the Desert Combat BF1942 mod to desert combat. :)
    • Even in games such as America's Army a player might be tempted to go rambo. And some players do. But the ratio of time spent dead waiting for the next round (no respawn) evenually makes players think about better ways to spend thier life (in the game) next round.

      Or they go play something else..

    • Re:Games... are well... games (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Guppy06 ( 410832 ) on Friday January 16, 2004 @07:24PM (#8003976)
      "When I play Couter-Strike, or BattleField, I don't care if I die."

      You don't have to deal with an irate drill seargent.

      Also, you're just doing it for entertainment. They are doing what they want to do with their lives. Different motivations.
    • I'm willing to bet if you do something stupid and die in the simulator "game"... you're gonna be pulled out, get your instructor to yell at you until your ears bleed, and then be doing pushups and "helped" pushups until you die.

      For those of you that don't know what I'm talking about, one form of "training" has you do pushups til you can't no more, then do pushups with someone helping you up with a towel around your toso.

      If you really think they'll have a "click to respawn" feature either a) you're an idio

    • Re:Games... are well... games (Score:5, Insightful)

      by James Lewis ( 641198 ) on Friday January 16, 2004 @10:02PM (#8004810)
      I disagree. I played in a few paintball tournaments, and what it really cofirmed in my mind is that any situation where people are spraying projectiles at each other involves a lot of luck. It doesn't matter how good you are, everyone gets hit eventually. In the games I played, you rarely were reacting to someone, you were just spraying whatever they were hiding behind hoping to nail them when they peaked out. Hollywood movies are way off. If you play a paintball game and really think about it as every hit as you dieing, it quickly reshapes your perception of war. The people who manage to get hit only rarely are the people way in the back with as little as possible of themselves showing, laying down a few cases of paint every game. The people who run to the front, who in the real world would be "heroes", are the ones who get hit the most. Skill certianly plays a factor in survival, but the main deciding factor is who exposes themselves to fire the most. I think in real world the majority of the heroes die, and only the very lucky ones survive. If I were to get drafted into a war, I would be very greatful for my paintball experience because it has taught me just how easy it is to get hit.
      • If I were to get drafted into a war, I would be very greatful for my paintball experience because it has taught me just how easy it is to get hit.

        The whole idea of paintball is convey the notion that if you get drafted for a war, then the only intelligent thing to do is get yourself to another country or place quickly where they aren't having a war. In the modern world the people who win wars are the people who don't fight them.
        • I think it's a diservice to those in the military to make a blanket statement such as this. I am sure there are people who join the army who know exactly what they are risking. They do it anyway, because they believe it is for a noble cause, and I think that deserves respect, not to be dismissed as "stupid".
      • "I played in a few paintball tournaments, and what it really cofirmed in my mind is that any situation where people are spraying projectiles at each other involves a lot of luck. It doesn't matter how good you are, everyone gets hit eventually."

        Paintballs are typically spheroids fired from a smooth barrel, so you won't be getting much better accuracy than your typical handgun. Smoothbore fell out of style in modern armies by the early Nineteenth Century, with ball ammunition not far behind. "Spray and p

  • Shucks (Score:5, Funny)

    by mikeophile ( 647318 ) on Friday January 16, 2004 @07:11PM (#8003871)
    It takes all the fun out of a friendly-fire incident if your sergeant can just respawn.

  • Bad news: We lose. (Score:5, Funny)

    by BitwizeGHC ( 145393 ) on Friday January 16, 2004 @07:11PM (#8003880) Homepage
    I'm to understand that in the initial simulations, the North Koreans totally overran the United States and emerged victorious -- not through the use of nukes but through millions of zerglings. The Prime Minister of North Korea had this to say:
    "ZERG RUSH kekekekeke ^______^"

  • High Tech in the right place? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bigman2003 ( 671309 ) on Friday January 16, 2004 @07:11PM (#8003881) Homepage
    I was in the Army, and I don't know if this type of simulation is being targeted at the right place.

    From the story, it seemed like this was going to be a vertical solution- from the top, all the way down to the individual soldier.

    I don't think that anyone below an E-7 (Platoon Sgt) would benefit from this type of training. Below that level, and you are really dealing with more of a human aspect, not tactical. The typical private is going to have more personal issues confronting a hostile crowd, than tactical. Someone else will be there to tell his dumb ass what to do- the question is, can he actual do it- and are his balls big enough.

    Contrary to all the dick swinging here on Slashdot- your balls don't get bigger while sitting in front of a computer- they get bigger by experiencing real-world confrontation.

    Later on- this might be of use- but one thing a typical soldier has a lot of, is time. Train them like crazy, to prepare for the real world.

    • Re:High Tech in the right place? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by cliveholloway ( 132299 ) on Friday January 16, 2004 @07:41PM (#8004087) Homepage Journal

      Contrary to all the dick swinging here on Slashdot- your balls don't get bigger while sitting in front of a computer- they get bigger by experiencing real-world confrontation.

      Perhaps working towards avoiding real-world confrontation would be a more admirable goal? You know, compromise, diplomacy, accepting that others may see the world differently to you?

      Now that could be good training. Deal with the conflict before getting your dicks (sorry, guns) out, hmmm?

      .02

      cLive ;-)

      • Re:High Tech in the right place? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Brian_Ellenberger ( 308720 ) on Saturday January 17, 2004 @01:02AM (#8005600)
        Perhaps working towards avoiding real-world confrontation would be a more admirable goal? You know, compromise, diplomacy, accepting that others may see the world differently to you?

        Now that could be good training. Deal with the conflict before getting your dicks (sorry, guns) out, hmmm?

        Plenty of people study political theory and international relations.

        However, the first lesson to learn from "accepting that others may see the world differently to you?" is that not everyone is interested in "diplomacy" and "compromise". Some see diplomacy as reaching the "correct" solution to a problem. Many others see it as trying to extract as much out of the other side as possible. What do you do when the two side can't even decide what diplomacy is?

        And what happens, say, when people like Slobodan Milosevic decide to kill all the Muslims in their country simply because he doesn't like them? Compromise? "Well, what about if you only kill half the Muslims?" Accept that others may see the world differently to you? "Well, *I* don't think killing all the Muslims is a good idea, but who am I to judge?"

        There is a time for diplomacy and a time for war. There is a time for compromise and understanding, and a time for standing up for yourself and your ideals. But anyway that's not the military's job. That is what our elected officials are for.

        Brian Ellenberger
    • Im not concerned with growing my testicles. They are big enough thanks.
    • Spoken like someone who didn't enter with much upstairs. When you were a private, were you such a "dumb ass" with "personal issues?"

      I've known too many dumb-ass E-9's (Sergeant Major/Master Chief) and above to accept that the grade comes with any claim to superior intelligence and intelligence is far more important than the size of your balls as any idiot with an IQ of 65 can yell and fire a gun.

      Oooh-friggen-rah.

  • Above real time training... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by vkg ( 158234 ) on Friday January 16, 2004 @07:12PM (#8003888) Homepage
    sorry, should have put this in the other post, but there's also ARTT - above real time training, where you run the sim 30% faster, people's reflexes speed up, and then in the real world they often have a 10% edge once they've reacclimatized to regular speed reality.

    I really do worry about the simulator-shock aspect of this: both in terms of creating unrealistic expectations on the part of the soliders, but also in terms of people slipping into "gamespace" on the battle field.

    ARRL (advanced robotics research limited) used to do a lot of VR work in Britain, and they wouldn't let people drive for about an hour or two after they'd been in the VR because people often drove in very odd ways, including being very agressive and taking foolish risks. They pinned it down to two things, if I remember correctly:

    1> Simulator artefacts, as outlined in the other post.
    2> The sense of "unreality" which pervaded the real world after having been inside for a while...

    People didn't feel like the real world was real any more after even three hours in a VR system. Somehow the brain figures out "well, I can run into walls and I don't feel anything, I must be dreaming(?)" or something like that?

    I don't know exactly, but stories like that give me a very, very bad feeling about extending the use of simulator based training even further. it might not be VR, but I won't be surprised if the problems are similar.

    The psychological effects are so subtle, but potentially so important. I think we might do much, much better investing these resources in better real-world training for troops than sims.
    • Just make them watch Existenz [imdb.com] a couple times a week.

      That oughta fix it.

    • Re:Above real time training... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by metlin ( 258108 ) on Friday January 16, 2004 @08:20PM (#8004290) Journal
      Thats one of the reasons I think AR (Augmented Reality) is cool. Its not the same as VR simply because you are still in your environment.

      And you can add extra soldiers and people around whom you can shoot/fight with and whatever.

      I do know that my school has a project on Battlefield Visualization [gatech.edu] using AR, and I'm quite surprised that AR isn't as widespread as VR. Agreed, it does have its own set of issues with long term usage. However, if you tried doing something stupid in AR like running against a wall, you WILL hit yourself and you WILL be hurt.

      And with a sufficiently complex AR system, you would not know the difference between who's real and who is not (dim the lights, add a few real soldiers and a few virtual ones and you will not know who's who).

      I really wonder why this is not as widespread as VR.
      • The last time I looked at AR, there were the following issues:

        1. Tracking. This is a biggie, since you want to make sure that what you want to add is seamlessly integrated to what you're actually seeing. Things like GPS, intertial tracking, etc. are needed, but suffer from lag and displacement error (very disorienting when you turn, and an object suddenly ghosts from one point to another). Magnetic and edge-based tracking also have issues outside of a carefully controlled environment.

        2. Display (whi
      • Thats one of the reasons I think AR (Augmented Reality) is cool. Its not the same as VR simply because you are still in your environment. And you can add extra soldiers and people around whom you can shoot/fight with and whatever. I really wonder why this is not as widespread as VR.

        Overlaying synthesized graphics on the real world is very, very difficult. Keeping the fake soldiers aligned with the real world when the soldier is whipping his head around looking for someone; knowing where real-world walls

    • wouldn't let people drive for about an hour or two after they'd been in the VR because people often drove in very odd ways...I don't know exactly, but stories like that give me a very, very bad feeling about extending the use of simulator based training even further. it might not be VR, but I won't be surprised if the problems are similar. The psychological effects are so subtle, but potentially so important.

      The effects don't last long enough to be a problem. There will always be a period of several hour

    • I totally buy what you're saying. I used to play a lot of Quake 2 CTF (for hours after work, in intense team games). Often, when walking or riding home afterwards, I'd hear Quake sound effects and experience a minor flight/fight response (nothing spectacular... but my heart would certainly speed up a notch). I'd also be generally edgy and amped.

      I know from personal experience that "VR" (well... Quake anyway) can carry over into real life!

      Do you have a reference on the "ARTT" stats you quote? 30% -> 10%

  • This could create something bad (Score:5, Funny)

    by generationxyu ( 630468 ) on Friday January 16, 2004 @07:12PM (#8003892) Homepage
    Notice how a bunch of 12 year olds break bones because they think they can skateboard? I mean, they totally beat Tony Hawk in like, 2 days.

  • Obligatory Tom Cruise quote: (Score:3, Insightful)

    by DwarfGoanna ( 447841 ) on Friday January 16, 2004 @07:13PM (#8003899)
    "I bet ten years from now, a guy thats good at Stocker(TM) will be a shoe-in at West Point!"


    Seriously though, I wonder if the fact that the government thinks video games are great tools for creating mindless violent automatons lends any weight to the naggy soccer moms claiming the same?


    =)

    • I bet ten years from now, a guy thats good at Stocker(TM) will be a shoe-in at West Point!"

      You mean Stalker, right?
    • Seriously though, I wonder if the fact that the government thinks video games are great tools for creating mindless violent automatons lends any weight to the naggy soccer moms claiming the same?

      "Mindless violent automatons" might be useful for the Chinese army, which relies on sheer numbers to win, but for the US army, they'd be worse than useless.

  • Too bad (Score:4, Funny)

    by chrispl ( 189217 ) on Friday January 16, 2004 @07:15PM (#8003914) Homepage
    I bet if it was going to be REALLY cool someone would steal the source code and ruin it for the rest of us...

  • Uniques (Score:5, Funny)

    by k_killmore ( 731490 ) on Friday January 16, 2004 @07:19PM (#8003945)
    It will be interesting to see how our troops will deal with real world combat when they don't have the same Ikthar's Ring of Thorns that gives them +2 to all skills, 40% more likely to find magic item, and 130% damage. u got SSoJ?

  • Why not privatize? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by dasuridai ( 606603 )
    It seems to me that this is the perfect opportunity to save a few of our taxpaying bucks and contract with a gaming company that has an existing game. Pay the coders to add a the necessary training features and you have saved a bunch of redundant work. Don't reinvent the wheel guys!

    • Re:Why not privatize? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Cali Thalen ( 627449 ) on Friday January 16, 2004 @07:31PM (#8004024) Homepage
      Actually, that's pretty much what's happening. There.com is a 'gaming' or virtual world site that has regular paying members. The software used to run it is the same (basic) software that the Army is using to train with. Obviously modified to fit the situation.

      Not sure which is the chicken and which is the egg, but no matter which one came first, it's an existng game, so you can stop worrying about your tax dollars.
    • America's Army was built on top of the Unreal engine, so there's at least one pre-existing model for development out there. Not only that, but America's Army is multi-platform (Mac and Linux, as well as the all-pervasive Windows PC) with minimal (probably about a month or two) lag between Windows and non-Windows releases. For a free game, this is pretty good - plenty of for-profit companies can't even get a multiplatform release out at all, much less one that keeps the feature lag to a minimum.

      Personall

  • Government efficiency (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Bet this turns out to be largest price ever paid for a copy of battlefield 1942.

  • War Games? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Groovus ( 537954 ) on Friday January 16, 2004 @07:25PM (#8003988)
    Ever see that movie?

    I'm not so sure this is a great idea.

    Firstly, I don't know of any guys on the pro golf circuit who got there because they're the man at sim golf. I doubt that I'd want someone who kicks butt at rollercoaster tycoon making amusement parks and rollcosters for public use. You get the idea.

    Sure you have simulators which people use for training - but those are incredibly expensive incredibly specialized pieces of equipment. Real life pilots aren't using MS flight simulator to get their licenses. And this war game stuff sure doesn't sound like anything more than Everquest set in a modern day war zone.

    Secondly, do we really need to be spending more public funding to reach an even larger audience to teach them the best way to kill people? Even if it's just the abstract virtual kind of killing with no "real" repercussions. I mean, if you want to be a soldier, go ahead and sign up, get the real training, see what it's like to actually have to wake up at 0500 and hit the obstacle course, fire off a few rounds, get disciplined, maybe even go off and have to be personally responsible for the death and maiming of a few other human beings because that's your job. Do we really need an MMORPG for this? Shouldn't we be spending this money on teaching people how NOT to kill each other, or adressing the issues that make it so people want to kill their fellow man in the first place? Then we might not need so many soldiers.

    Sorry, that's just crazy talk - by all means it's a great idea to teach Johnny and Janie how to frag. That's invaluable job skill training that will benefit humanity. Heck in that case, why not make it a required course to graduate High School? Sponsored by the military-industrial complex near you.

    My tax dollars at work indeed.
    • Yeah, fine but... how sophisticated a skill set to you need to KILL PEOPLE, for pete's sake!
      • Very. If you want to kill them before they kill you. Pulling a trigger is easy, hitting what you aim at isn't very hard, but doing it without getting killed and while shooting the right people to help the tactical situation - yeah, that'd be hard.
    • Actually, "real" pilots often do spend hours in MS Flightsim or similar program (often marketed as a game) practicing. They recommend it for beginners and many experienced pilots use it to practice seldom-used skills.

      Even less realistic sims have uses in teaching real-world skills. I can see using an RTS-type game to train people in quickly thinking and responding to complex situations.

      The military sim probably isn't supposed to simulate crawling through the jungle killing people, but how to avoid common
    • Shouldn't we be spending this money on teaching people how NOT to kill each other, or adressing the issues that make it so people want to kill their fellow man in the first place?

      Well, yeah, that'd be nice, but that will never happen. We'd have to train everyone in the world for that to actually work, and people aren't reasonable or intelligent enough to ever accept that kind of training on a large scale. It's easier to hate than think, so hate will nearly always win.

      I'm just glad we do have a strong a

    • Re:War Games? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Dun Malg ( 230075 ) on Friday January 16, 2004 @10:20PM (#8004899) Homepage
      Sure you have simulators which people use for training - but those are incredibly expensive incredibly specialized pieces of equipment. Real life pilots aren't using MS flight simulator to get their licenses. And this war game stuff sure doesn't sound like anything more than Everquest set in a modern day war zone.

      It isn't a replacement for real-world training, it's in addition to it. Your argument is bizarre and unrealistic.

    • Shouldn't we be spending this money on teaching people how NOT to kill each other, or adressing the issues that make it so people want to kill their fellow man in the first place?

      Drill Instructor: Damn it! You hit the target! What are you trying to do? Kill the guy?

      In all honesty, the point of this isn't to make soldiers insensitive to killing any more than any other kind of training. It's just another way of teaching tactics so that perhaps our soldiers' lives would be saved.

      Don't get this confused wit

  • MS puts another tick their bedpost... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Ironica ( 124657 ) <pixelNO@SPAMboondock.org> on Friday January 16, 2004 @07:32PM (#8004036) Journal
    [developed by There Inc.]

    I got into their Beta (I think everyone did) and never got the game installed because I refused to upgrade to the latest IE *and* make it my default browser.

    Good to know that someone's doing something to counteract all this Open Source in Government [slashdot.org] nonsense...

    • The funny part is, their demos are available exclusively in Apple's QuickTime, but their client isn't Mac compatible. Heh.
  • A lot of folks have been curious as to how There has managed to stay in business for so long, now we know that it's our tax dollars at work.

  • Make it a true MMO (Score:2, Interesting)

    by ghideon ( 720955 )
    Ya know, invite everyone to play. That way you can see tactics from all over the place. A lot of gamers are very good at "gaming the system" or "min/maxing." Pit the world at large against the Army in this sim (altho it should be anonymous, no one should no who's real Army who's a gamer). Of course, there's always the concern that someone else will take to heart the lessons being learned. But with the Army actually in control of the system, I would hope the benefits would outweigh the risks.
    • then, you'd just have people killing rabbits for food, and trading up to get items to sell on ebay, or you'd have people hiding behind every possible object waiting to shoot someone who walks by.

      Oh, and there would be lots of people just running around and jumping and shooting everything that moves.

      Fun!

  • World War II Online (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Mittermeyer ( 195358 ) on Friday January 16, 2004 @08:00PM (#8004189) Homepage
    World War II Online already has an immersive world oriented towards shooting people with ballistics/armor resolution, interaction between ground sea and air units, and 3000+ people in a single game world (1940 NW Europe, the largest game world in existence). Would have been nice to see some of that $6 million thrown towards a working model.

    Likely they are going to get better eye candy (which is important for immersion in infantry battles) but the vehicles are not going to be right without serious serious work. And forget about interacting with fast moving choppers and jets.

  • army vs. us? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Beowulf_Boy ( 239340 ) on Friday January 16, 2004 @08:04PM (#8004208)
    Wouldn't it be a cool idea,
    as well as good practice for the troops,
    if they could play against the average joe?

    Perhaps have weekly games, 1 spawn per a game,
    to prevent dumbasses from just going rambo,
    in which the troops, using their machines, could play against anyone in the US with the proper program and computer setup.

    It'd keep them on their toes, thats for sure.
    It'd similate a half-hazard army, such as guerilla armys, or mobs. Plus, I'd love to be able to whip out my sniper rifle and pick off a few of them

  • For realism (Score:5, Funny)

    by addie ( 470476 ) on Friday January 16, 2004 @08:11PM (#8004240)
    The "good guys" should get outfit with alienware machines while the enemies play on Russian-refurbished Apple II's.
  • There, Inc. seems like a very strange choice to develop a fighting simulation - all you do in their existing game is dance and buy clothes...

  • This won't last long (Score:3, Funny)

    by Boatman ( 127445 ) on Friday January 16, 2004 @08:39PM (#8004396)
    This'll last about as long as it takes for the 82nd Airborne to get their butts kicked by a bunch of 12 year olds. Maybe that's why they're calling it Asymmetric Warfare...
  • So they'll spend most of their time buying the latest fashions in military fatigues and mini-games like playing with hover-tanks?

  • The end of this path should be familiar to us all (Score:3, Informative)

    by paiute ( 550198 ) on Friday January 16, 2004 @11:51PM (#8005340)
    "A Taste of Armageddon" is one of classic Trek's occasional, obvious metaphors for the absurdity of the then-cold war between East and West. Gene Lyons stars as a Federation ambassador named Fox, who boards the Enterprise to reach the planet Eminiar VII, where he hopes to negotiate a peace treaty with the inhabitants. Instead the crew of the Enterprise gets caught in the middle of an interplanetary war between Eminiar and neighboring planet Vendikar. The twist is that the war is being fought on computers, and compliant residents of those "destroyed" areas obediently report to disintegration chambers, where their "virtual" death is made literal. When the Enterprise is "hit" in one of these simulations, both the warlords of Eminiar VII and Ambassador Fox fully expect Capt. Kirk and crew to report to the disintegration center. The feisty Kirk has other plans, of course. And while the madness of this controlled Armageddon makes a suitably surreal satire of the arms race in the 1960s, the story also evoked the endless, daily reports of body counts during the Vietnam War, with no resolution in sight. Aside from its parable aspect, however, the episode gave Kirk one of his earliest and most compelling scenes of Kirkian preachiness in a bold monologue about peace, reportedly written and rewritten numerous times by series producer and indispensable creative hand Gene L. Coon. --Tom Keogh

Slashdot Top Deals

The truth of a proposition has nothing to do with its credibility. And vice versa.

Close