Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

On Training, Recruitment Uses For Army Games

Posted by simoniker on 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.'"

7 of 274 comments (clear)

  1. What a surprise by Timesprout · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    --
    Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
    What truth?
    There is no dupe
    1. Re:What a surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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). ;)

    2. Re:What a surprise by LGagnon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  2. Newsflash! by th0mas.sixbit.org · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This just in: Propaganda is effective. Now to Bill for the weather.

    --
    twitter.com/gravitronic
  3. Former military perception by bstarrfield · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    /* Dang, I can't type that well. */
    1. Re:Former military perception by BoneFlower · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  4. Re:Study concludes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.