Slashdot Mirror
Games That Shoot Back
syousef writes "A shooting game that shoots back, delivering electric shocks through the player's hips when they're shot, is being used for recruitment (Hey shooting people is fun) and training by the U.S. military. There's talk of developing it into a PC game. Here's a quote from the article: 'It has the same power as a stun gun. It knocks you down. You have to continue to work through the pain and keep on fighting, as that is what you need to do - to keep on fighting even when wounded.' I guess in Soviet America, games shoot you. How many law suits would this cause based on unknown heart conditions? I also hope there's some sort of built-in safety in case the thing starts to zap you repeatedly. (Deadly endless loop, anyone?)"
Who will be the first to write malware that actually kills people?
When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
In some countries this will land you in jail. When I was in the UK I was shocked to discover that two consenting adults in the privacy of their own home are not legally permitted to beat the shit out of each other. "Brawling" is an offense of the crown and you can be put away for it. Of course, it's an unenforcable law when you're in private, but in public it's common for two people who have agreed to fight to be sent to prison for it. How insane is that? Here in Australia if you ask someone to "step outside" the law will usually not get involved.
How we know is more important than what we know.
I find it a bit sickening that the military is producing games to attract people to join. Aren't games supposed to be fun? Are they hoping for gamers to think "hmm- this game is fun, I think I'll join the army so I can HAVE FUN KILLING PEOPLE IN REAL LIFE." ?
Does anybody else find that unsettling?
Esoteric reference.
two consenting adults in the privacy of their own home are not legally permitted to beat the shit out of each other
Consenting? I think the law operates as it does because in fact consenting to being beaten up is really pretty unlikely, and the vast majority of situations where this might occur are cases of domestic violence, which surely no sane person would prefer the law turned a blind eye to. If you and a mate want a fight, go ahead - but make sure you don't create a disturbance, damage property or get any third parties involved. Usually by the time you've arranged all this you can be fairly sure the law will leave you to it - but by then presumably cool heads will have prevailed and realised the whole matter can't be settled by a fight. Fights are the last refuge of the idiot, and because society at large believes that, the law upholds that view.
Well anyway, the idea that you could have a weapon with two settings, stun and kill, gee, where did the cops get the idea that this would come in handy? Turns out that it is hard to stun someone without killing them. The old detective movie cliche of stunning someone by hitting them over the head? An MD writing in TV guide told readers that "if you hit someone over the head, most likely you just hurt them and make them mad. If you hit them harder to knock them out, chances are you kill someone from a hematoma."
I have seen films where they Taser a volunteer, and they start convulsing or they just faint and tip over and hit the mat in the gym they are doing this with a thud. I have seen a recent episode of "Cops" where they Tasered a whole bunch of different people, and it didn't seem to do anything. I suppose the electric shock causes intense, sudden pain, and that can cause someone to collapse, just like being shot with a bullet, only there is no tissue damage so the person doesn't bleed to death, but does it really work? I suppose a bullet doesn't always "work" in that a person can be fatally wounded but not always drop dead right away.
Anyway, I was the only person at the meeting willing to try the Taser (it was a model with two electrodes sticking out, and it didn't have the darts for remote action). I was going to zap my forearm and I was quickly advised "better try it on your leg. So I hold the Taser up to my leg and press the trigger. I was pretty embarrassed because I yelled out "Jesus Christ!" I was more startled than anything else, and it hurt real bad, but not the kind of hurt of someone drilling into your teeth -- more like the worst kind of muscle cramp -- it really hurt but I felt like my leg muscles were seizing up.
So what does a Taser do? Does it really knock a person out like on Star Trek, or does it merely cause a person to take the Lord's name in vain? Have they made the Taser more powerful in the last 20 years? More maybe because my finger was on the trigger, I let go when it first started to hurt, and a person has to deliver multiple jolts to get someone to collapse.
I'll bet everyone will be camping all the time.
You mean "hiding behind something bulletproof", just like most soldiers do in a REAL WAR unless the enemy is chasing them or their officers are ordering them to move? A real firefight between a dozen soldiers can take hours, since getting anyone to "rush" is both stupid and nearly impossible.
That's why "elite units" are elite, because they will actually voluntarily put themselves in harm's way rather than only trying to stay alive. Consequently, they can make short work of conscripts and half-trained farm boys.
Freedom: "I won't!"
I think the law operates as it does because in fact consenting to being beaten up is really pretty unlikely
Have you never heard of boxing?
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Paint balls hurt when they hit you. They can leave a pretty sizable welt if they hit you on a hard spot like the wrist.
So, you REALLY try not to get hit. It's exciting!
If there were a concequence to being shot in an FPS besides a two minute wait until the next round, it would make you think twice about rushing or doing something stupid, and develop more tactics. There would probably be more camping (not necessarily a bad thing if the level is designed well) and it would force you to overcome those camps with better tactics.
Of course, I wouldn't want it to be as painful as a damned stun gun.
But, in the end it wouldn't work because you have no way to be sure there's a device attached to every person playing the game over the internet. This only works if there's full participation (you know, like SPF.)
In a LAN game it could be a blast though.
If something like this came to the mass market, I'd expect it to be some weak vibrating belt thing, not an electric jolt.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -