Slashdot Mirror
Real Warriors Trained In Virtual Worlds
The Washington Post has a piece looking at the U.S. military's increased reliance on gaming for training the next generation of soldiers. From the article: "'The technology in games has facilitated a revolution in the art of warfare,' says David Bartlett, the former chief of operations at the Defense Modeling and Simulation Office, a high-level office within the Defense Department and the focal point for computer-generated training at the Pentagon. 'When the time came for [a solider in training] to fire his weapon, he was ready to do that. And capable of doing that. His experience leading up to that time, through on-the-ground training and playing 'Halo' and whatever else, enabled him to execute. His situation awareness was up. He knew what he had to do. He had done it before -- or something like it up to that point.'"
When I did small arms training, one of the hardest things to do (for the Corps at least) was to get people to pull the trigger at the moment of truth. There is a built in hesitation that people have to shooting others. So, training typically starts off with standard targets and then progresses to targets of humans in silhouette, then for close quarters battle training, targets become more realistic looking.
Using CG generated images helps significantly by enhancing the realism and lowering the threshold of resistance to "trigger pull".
What computers cannot teach however, is the NOISE and physical presence of a firefight.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
In that case, feel free to practice your driving skills you road warrior!
Traffic Jam
I learned everything I know about women through the Leisure Suit Larry series.
Wait... do video games train killers, or don't they? I'm so confused.
What does Jack Thompson have to say about this?
Yes, thanks to my many grueling hours of Halo training, my situational awareness and my proficiency with all plasma weapons is markedly improved.
..or else Jack Thompson is going to sue their violent-game-promoting asses!
Hexy - a strategy game for iPhone/iPod Touch
His situation awareness was up. He knew what he had to do. He had done it before -- or something like it up to that point.
"He was the perfect drone."
Well, that's how I imagine the next sentence to go. Talking seriously about war and somehow working in Halo doesn't give me the vote of confidence I would expect to get from the military. It simply conjures up images of kids playing FPS's and thinking that it's somehow even remotely close to the real thing.
-Valiss
His experience leading up to that time, through on-the-ground training and playing 'Halo' and whatever else, enabled him to execute.
No wonder there are so many shootings on the streets of our cities. Video games...real life...what's the difference?
I love americas army http://www.americasarmy.com/ .. ;-)
very role based, strategic shooting game...& above all its free
$$ profit
To prohibit spawn camping.
So, which is it?
Generally, bash is superior to python in those environments where python is not installed.
Why not just take the entire war to the virtual world then? That would be awesome! "Tonight at eleven we'll have live coverage from the war in Iran. The US Special Forces have cornered the insurgents into de_dust after dominating them 4-0 in a de_dust2 tournament. 12 year old Mikey Thompson who leads the USSF says he's confident about the outcome as the insurgents are all 'camping awp wh0res'."
--------
Linux is only free if your time is of no value.
Lessons learned: ...
1) You run faster when you sling your weapon and draw your knife
2) Jumping reduces the chance of enemy headshots
3)
Before the invention of eruptions, lava had to be carried down the mountain by hand and thrown on sleeping villagers.
I wonder if the militray lets solders autosave, or if when the fail they have to restart the level.
FUNNY!!! Seems like Orson Scott Card had the right idea after all. Sounds to me like the defense department has started reading Enders Game instead of listening to Bush =)
Maybe games help a little bit, but there is no substitute for experience. I don't think the article is claiming there is, but it gets kind of close. There is a big difference between what happens to your adrenaline when you get shot at in the world and when you get shot at in a video game. The negative feedback and noise levels in games are not good enough to provide 'combat experience'. I think for tactics/strategy training it can be a nice way to simulate complex scenarios without having to coordinate a massive war game using real people, weapons, vehicles, fuel, etc. I probably just said what the article did, but in fewer words..
IMDB says Toys was released in 1992, but this is news? Get with the times /.!
I think there can be little doubt that the more immersive a simulated environment is, the better a training aid it will become. I've always wondered, when a simulated world becomes indistinguishable from the real one, how will you be able to tell the difference? Back to topic, if they could create robots that work in real life driven from the "pilot" in a FPS environment, you could have remote soldiers. Steve
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
I can just imagine some soldiers finishing a tough game and wiping the sweat from their brow, only to be told afterward that they just destroyed the last opposition and made the world safe for America, and then having to live with genocide on their conscience for the rest of their lives.
(If you don't get it, I just spoiled the SF classic Ender's Game for you, sorry.)
You've got to have a pretty darn powerful 5.1 system before your video game is adding that one final element that makes things difficult in a combat experience: you might die any moment. No quickload, no extra lives, no stimpacks.
At what point do you draw the line (if there even is one) and restrict what a simulation can do? Hear me out on this one before you flame me for being a freedom hater...
We all know that "simulations" - be it games, VR, or whatever - are getting more and more realistic. And that trend will continue until things are VERY realistic. We all also know that many simulations are based on a wide variety of behaviors that society would not want to encourage. (ie: killing someone in Doom is fine, doing it in the real world is obviously bad)
So how do you draw a line between these two? Or is there even a line? Obviously a simulation is just that -- a fake environment that mimics a real environment. But from the sound of this article, simulations have a very REAL effect on those who are participating in them - at least according to the military. So their impact stretches beyond their own environment and "spills out" into real, quantifiable behaviors, actions, and feelings.
So, I guess my question is this: is there ever a point where we have to draw some lines about what is and is not allowed in simulations? Be it violence based. Or sexually based. Or behaviorally based. Is there ever a point where we have to say NO?
Uh, they didn't kill them afaik.
And no, before someone flames me that doesn't make it ok I was just pointing out the AC's error.
nice Amazon referrer link you got yourself there Mr Christopher Spammer, are you really that desperate for cash that you have to spam Slashdot with crappy refferal links ?
I think it needs to be said that the simulations the military are employing are part of an entire regiment designed to lower one's resistance to killing. Games in the living room are taking place in the context of your couch, where you really don't have that much pressure attempting to erode your resistances and predispositions. Long story short, games themselves don't make you a soldier but used in conjunction with other things they make an effective tool.
abort, retry, fail?
It is absolutely true that video games don't cause a student to go shoot up a school, any more than training simulators cause a soldier to go to war.
Training in a video game prepares soldiers for firing on real humans in battle because they know that is what they are training for. A soldier is a professional killer. They have already signed up to kill people, and are being trained in how to do that. The simulator is just preparation, preparation for a real-life job. Mentally preparing soldiers for the difficult task of firing on another living human was done long before the video game, and this is nothing more than an extension of that training using technology.
This is nothing at all like playing a game casually at home. Could a student bent on shooting up his school use an FPS to mentally prepare themselves, like the soldier? Sure. Could a mentally unbalanced person try to carry over their virtual endeavors into the real world? Sure. But in both cases, whether deliberately or not, you have a person blurring the line between the game and reality. This person was already dangerous/i> and video games aren't doing anything that any number of movies, books, or just imagination couldn't do.
If you are capable of distinguishing between reality and fantasy -- and any sane child over age 9 should easily be able to do this -- then there is no danger of video games causing you to shoot up a school. If you make the conscious decision to use video games to train yourself to kill, then you are either a soldier training for war, or a psychopath training for crime. In no case are video games to blame.
The enemies of Democracy are
... which would exclude unrealistic games like Halo, with its Sci-Fi setting and enhanced physics.
In the real thing, you don't get a high five for trying when you lose the game.
3) Jumping at the right frequency can make you run much faster, by allowing you to only accelerate and never deccelerate
4) Moving diagonally (both forward and sideways at the same time) can make you run 3% faster
5) Jumping at the same time that you run out from behind cover and fire won't make your firing less accurate, but will reduce your chances of getting hit
Didn't this all start with tabletop wargames? Perhaps someone can refresh my memory as to what TSR (as in the folks that published Dungeons & Dragons) originally stood for. Is the military increasing its reliance on games, or just increasingly using fancy FPS engines?
Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
oh... wait...
If it is possible to train millions in the black art of violence,
which is the law of the Beast, it is more possible to train them
in the white art of non-violence, which is the law of regenerate man.
Human dignity is best preserved not by developing the capacity to
deal destruction but by refusing to retaliate. (Gandhi; I-228)
When China finally launches nukes at us and commences ground offensive operations, I'll already be fully familiar with military hand signals, squad and individual tactics, and weapon systems. I'll be able to link up with militia and fight for the 'ol Red White & Blue, whithout ever having been in the military in my entire life. I'll be living the survivalist's dream!
All thanks to you, Full Spectrum Warrior!
hello dear sirs my name is jamesh i are india (bihar) can u guide me install red had linux 9?
Against an unsuspecting opposing force, I'm pretty sure bunny hopping and crouching would work for a couple years.
disclaimer: I don't play AA and you don't know Halo was a bogus reference
On a serious note now, considering my experience as a long time America's Army player and warfare coordinator of my clan, I'm totally confident in saying that playing FPS matches is the next best thing to RL when it comes to learning and testing strategies as well as learning how to behave during an operation.
"It felt like I was in a big video game. It didn't even faze me, shooting back. It was just natural instinct. Boom! Boom! Boom! Boom! "
:)
A lot of people are scared by stuff like this, but in my eyes, it's how it has to be. We're not talking about cold-blooded killing, we're talking about one of mankind's greatest quirk - war.
It's all a matter of making a more effective soldier out on the battlefield. One might liken my perspective to that of "brainwashing" or "propaganda" used by Nazis and Japanese in WWII, but I think it is more mild and acceptable like our propaganda.
Again, this can be interpreted as pretty shallow, but I'm willing to discuss it
Might this cause an entirely different problem -- Trigger happy soldiers?
Ultimately, success in almost any occupation situation depends on making the people accept the new government. If soldiers are too trigger-happy and don't mind shooting people, you can end up with more innocent 'collateral damage'.
Dead non-combatants can make the surviving members of the family more hateful of your army. Some of them will go into the resistance, and the army now has more people to worry about -- so they become more trigger-happy. It quickly becomes a death-spiral.
This would explain at least part of the problem that US soldiers are having.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
From day one it was "kill kill get your thrill" the was no slowly leading up to fireing on a human.
After your rifle was sighted in all targets where human styled targets.
A big problem we had when i was in was fire disicpline, hard to train people to shoot at anything that moved and then expect them not to shoot at something they are not supposed to.
What was that warning Snake had about being heavily trained in virtual simulations? Something about an army of numbed machines just itching for a high score? :)
Ex nihilo nihil fit.
Companies like Forterra are producing tools that really do help soldiers (and medics and others) feel like they've "been there" before they really are there. This saves lives, something soldiers testing these systems assert. It's not about making some suburban kid into an automatic trigger-puller. It's about helping green troops to make snap decisions (with lethal consequences for either acting or not acting) with a little more confidence. Not to mention that products like Forterra's are all about live human voices - which allows MPs being trained to work at security checkpoints, etc., to experience working with a translator while an excitable avatar/taxi-driver in a gathering, cranky crowd lets that young MP start dealing with the pressure, mentally, before facing it while holding a gun.
Also of note: participators in these sims can sometimes be wounded vets, sitting in hospital on another continent, showing his soon-to-be replacement how not to walk into the ambush that he just barely survived.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
I have no idea why the government keeps trying to pull this completely false fact as some mantra, FPS games are not "soldier trainers", I have played hundreds of FPS yes, they make you FEEL like you are ready for a dangerous situation should it happen, but as soon as you face something similar in real life, your brain starts to recognize patterns the smell of blood and gun powder, the noise, the simple realization you are in mortal danger, it all triggers the alarms. If you have no real training you are still are as defenseless as any other civilian.
I have to confess this actually happened to ME, I witnessed a real robbery, one of the robbers was shot (in the leg) a few feet from me, I couldnt even MOVE. Let me get this straight: contrary to Jack Thompson's and Government theories I did not grabbed a gun from the robbers and blew them away while dropping catchy lines or checking some imaginary score, I was PARALYSED, convinced I was going to get killed any minute, and tried to stay as low as possible (just like any guy would) then as soon as things were calmed I almost puked in the bathroom.
Soldiers have to go trough basic training as always, games such as AA have been used for years only to teach soldiers to strategize during combat, and specifically AA teaches soldiers to play by the book other than going out solo, they have to comply every task they are commanded or lose.
Dont even try to get the "Murder simulator" on me you cant even save your OWN life with that "training".
Go ahead MOD my day!
More opinions here
What the fuck does this have to do with soldiers using video simulations for training?
Get your offtopic shit out of here, and go back to hanging with all the other loser kos kids and other moonbats.
Pilots, tank crews, navy crews have been using simulators for years...decades. And now, it is far more than just switchology. Tactics, communication, positioning all come in to play in the sim.
Soldiers on the ground need exactly the same training. It's far easier, faster, and cheaper to put 10 guys in a simulated environment, where they can make mistakes (and learn from those mistakes), than it is to put them out in the field.
Reset...let's go over it again.
No, it's not perfect. Nothing really matches the noise, smells, adrenaline of real combat. But it is quite useful.
> could make you feel "immortal" (at least subconsciously, which
> could affect your behavior).
Is that a bug or a feature?
Seriously. Now, obviously, armed forces don't want their soldiers to get killed (for many very good reasons); however, I can't help but wonder if dampening the self-preservation instinct by exposing soldiers to these games where they're effectively immortal isn't useful in terms of helping to make them think of personal danger as an obstacle to be avoided, rather than as the more natural OMFGI"MGONNADIE!!!
"'Ctrl+Alt+Del,' " the U.S. Army noted in a recent study, "is as basic as 'ABC.'"
Are they really saying that rebooting a PC is as fundamental and commonplace as reading??
Sure, we like to joke that Windows is unstable; "The US Army reports that every time they try to read an email message, they have to reboot Windows". It's so sad that people put up with such instability from their OS and applications.
Quick wafting zephyrs vex bold Jim
Unfortunately, soldiers who grew up playing games like "Fallout" insist upon fighting with BB Guns and Spears, and refuse to shoot unless they can get a bead on the eyes or the groin.
If Hillary Clinton or Jack Thompson get hold of this article, they're likely to have a field day with it.
I will admit that probably the most realistic game I've played was Half Life, which probably wasn't realistic, for the most part. I've also played a lot of Doom, (who hasn't?) and the game which I overwhelmingly excel at is the original Max Payne. (Although of course, that is completely and entirely unrealistic. I use Bullet Time in virtually any game I can find it, including via modifications, as it allows me to compensate for my lack of marksmanship)
I don't actually like more realistic games, because my marksmanship ability is almost entirely non-existent...if I'm forced to rely on a machine gun, that is. If there's a shotgun available, I'll usually fare a lot better. Most of the more supposedly realistic ones though are almost entirely about machine guns, it seems.
In terms of learning tactics, Half Life was interesting from the point of view that I felt like it might have taught something about fighting in close quarters. I remember when I saw Stargate and the soldiers in the temple were being picked off one at a time by the Anubis guards; what HL would have taught me to do in that situation would be to get into a corner of the building with my back against a wall, preferably with a shotgun, night vision, and some grenades, (either regulars, or prox would be even better) and let the guards come to me. You'd probably still die in that scenario anyway, but it'd feel as though I'd have a slightly better chance.
I also did learn I think over the span of a number of games what my own weapons of choice/most likely proficiency would possibly be; as I said, primarily a shotgun and some form of explosives/incendiaries.
I never had to shot someone, but I know that in a combat situation I would have done it without hesitation.
For most armies, the most important and difficult task they face is in training their young soldiers to accurately and deliberately fire their weapons at enemy soldiers. S.L.A. Marshall's classic work "Men Against Fire" first addressed this issue over 50 years ago, and although the statistics he cites in the book have been vigorously disputed, the gist of his argument is still true. So modern armies spend an awful lot of time and energy doing the sort of training you mentioned - running around in the rain and dirt and snow and mud, creating situations that are as close as possible to real combat. If you want to talk about successful training, don't look to video games. Look instead at the NTC and JRTC.
One of the things that no video game (in particular) or sterile target range training environment will ever reproduce is the uncertainty of combat. You are not operating in a pre-defined, bounded killing zone. Your squad leader is shouting something and you're trying to hear what he's saying. You hear the crack of an AK nearby, but your hearing is so screwed up that you can't tell where it came from. You're hot. You're tired. Sweat is running down into your eyes, forcing you to swipe at your face every few minutes with the back of your free hand. Your flak vest is trying to strangle you. There is dust all over the place, making it that much harder to see. There are friendlies nearby. They're supposed to be on your flank, but are they? There are enemy combatants to your front, but they've hidden in a crowd and they don't wear uniforms. Is than an AKS or just a big stick in that kid's hands? Your ears are ringing from the M60 being fired right next to you, and when you can't hear things, it takes one more of your sensory inputs away from you. Now you're relying purely on your vision. What if that guy waving at you at the intersection 100 meters away is a friendly, who lost his helmet somehow? Is he shouting? What is he shouting at you?
All of this business about virtual combat training is crap. There's a reason small unit combat courses aren't virtual. There's a reason Ranger School, BUD/S, and the Q Course aren't virutal. You train to fight. The closer you can replicate the real experience in training, the more likely you'll do the right thing reflexively in real combat.
Still, even with all that training, I find it difficult to believe that anyone truly "knows" what they will or will not do when forced to fire a weapon in combat. The military training makes it more likely that you will react as you have been trained, but there is only one way to find out for sure.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Former West Point instructor Lt. Col. Dave Grossman wrote a fascinating book called On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society that addresses, among other things, techniques used by the military to train soldiers to kill.
He brings up some interesting points, including only 15 to 20 percent of the individual riflemen in World War II fired their own weapons at an exposed enemy soldier and Conditioning in flight simulators enables pilots to respond reflexively to emergency situations even when frightened. And similar application and perfection of basic conditioning techniques increased the rate of fire to approximately 55 percent in Korea and around 95 percent in Vietnam.
In other words, simulation and conditioning absolutely has an effect on people.
Writers imply. Readers infer.
"Ender's Game"?
ok so that made me laugh.. most i jsut chuckle at but that was just so truthful
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
I see 2 general debates here. -Are these games realistic enough to provide any real benefit? -Does this provide proof that violent videos make people violent? Gran Turismo can be a great tool to help someone learn a driving technique, a track, etc, and some pro racers do indeed use games as a tool (and I have too, before going to a track). But that is all it is, not a replacement for real driving. Same as this; it doesn't have to fill every niche that other training will, but it can be a great additional to training already. When I rode Laguna Seca on my bike, it sure was nice to know where every corner was,a nd I felt like I knew what I was doing from the first lap. Now, does GT make me a reckless driver in the process? Well, if I wasn't the kind of guy that doesn't always do the speed limit, I probably wouldn't be playing a racing game. But, I don't turn off the playstation after a game and do hit 160 in my car. So, you wouldn't blame MS flight sim for causing 9/11, why blame FPSs for school violence?
A friend of mine once described it to me this way: He used to run with a rough crowd, carried a gun, hurt people as favors for other people, etc. He told me, relaying one of his own experiences with having a gun pointed at him, "It doesn't matter how hardcore you are, it doesn't matter how much you've been through, if someone gets a gun to your head and you don't have yours, it all changes, and you turn into a total pussy instantly."
In similar news, flight simulator software has been blamed for an increase applications for pilot's licenses.
The computer graphics and intelligence that make FPS games was developed by the military to simulate battle for the training of soldiers. Now that there is a market for the games, and an industry making innovations for its own competitive advantage, the military is incorporating those advances in "real" battle simulators.
So don't pretend that war games are not violent. They're meant to be!
It's funny that some of the posters here feel that the idea of "games" are new to military planning. If anything, games based on military maneuvers in war have been around since the beginning. What do you think chess is? It's a board representation of war. Not as we fight it today, but as it was fought.
The first quotes in the article give the wrong impression, really. No, any FPS is not like the real thing. I was pleased to see them mention "Marine Doom," since it was the first use of mods for an FPS in the military. But what it was for was to help practice maneuvers in small units. That is, to get soldiers to practice moving and working as a unit. Today, this is pretty much a feature of most FPS's - the networked "team" and "co-op" capabilities.
The idea in all training is to make it as realistic as possible, and to make (and correct) any mistakes there, not in the real thing. These games are an adjunct to that. It's a lot cheaper to go out and buy a couple of off-the-shelf games and consoles and run through some scenarios than it is to run it through in real life practices or massive simulators. They have their purpose as well, but the games give them a chance to make the "really stupid move!" at a much lower cost before they go to that point, and before they're in the real thing.
I never put much faith in the idea that voilent video games help make kids into killers until I read Lt. Col. Dave Grossman's book On Killing, which discusses in a systematic and well-referenced manner exactly what the armed forces have done since the Civil War to increase the firing rate of their infantrymen.
Firing rate? Contrary to what you may think of the typical Civil War battlefield, most soldiers did not fire their weapons. On a big field running with blood, cannons booming and everyone screaming, most soldiers would not fire a single shot. Battles would end with literally thousands upon thousands of loaded muskets on the ground. Fast forward to WWII, where we have the image of brave American soliders firing automatic weapons under terrible conditions. The nonfiring rate among infantrymen was 80-85%. Further, only 1% of airmen accounted for over 40% of all downed enemy aircraft. Most pilots did not shoot anyone down or even try to.
The Army decided to look into this. What they found out is that people generally don't want to kill anybody, and would often rather die themselves, even in battle when they are scared to death, than shoot someone. Not that the soldiers were cowards. On the contrary, the same soldiers that would not fire a shot would repeatedly take terrible risks to rescue a wounded comrad. But the Army wanted them to pull the trigger and hit something, and they figured out how. The only way someone that scared would be able to do anything in that situation is if they had been subject to operant conditioning. They would need to program the soldier's midbrain to fire the weapon, since the forebrain is no longer in use under that much stress. They began to make training as realistic as possible in terms of exposure to violence, and make the thought/action of killing part of a soldier's reflex, so that when the bullets started flying, the American soldier would respond.
It worked. During Korea the nonfiring rate among infantrymen rose to about 55%, and by Vietnam it was an amazing 90-95%. The American infantryman was a killer on the battlefield, and only later did the Army realize that fully 98% of soldiers who experience close combat and pull the trigger would be psychiatric casualties. The 2% that weren't mentally crippled are people who, outside the military, would be locked up.
The author makes an excellent study of how this sort of operant conditioning for violence exists outside the military, in movies and video games. Before you knee-jerk and say that violent video games have no impact on the children who play them hours and hours a day, and who then go watch violent movies and television, you should check out this book. It's hard to dismiss the data out of hand.
They don't train only in the virtual world either I assume.
I'm guessing that when you mix real firearms training, you can throw in some virtual stuff to help work out strategic thinking, approach, etc.
But you still have to have the real training, or else nothing will stick.
Guesses, yes
...and from the looks of events in the past, spawning in camp too :)
Find a job you like and you will never work a day in your life.
The military uses games to teach soldiers teamwork and awareness, not how to shoot guns. War games are still critical. Live ammunition training is still critical. Live experience is important. Games are also important.
One only needs to play a racing game and then take a cruze to get it.
ROFL punk kids got a spanking. Someone had to do it.
I have no idea why the government keeps trying to pull this completely false fact as some mantra, FPS games are not "soldier trainers"
The computer simulations are not your average FPS. It is usually something like Four M-16 Rifles wired to a computer in front of a wall-sized screen playing a scenario. You go in with your fire team and play through different scenarios in full equipment (Flak Jacket, Load-Bearing Vest, Helmet). Usually you are evaluated on communication, accuracy, target selection, etc. The method I described was how it was done 10 years ago. I'm sure it has become much more interactive and complex. That is a soldier trainer.
These scenarios complement training, they don't replace it. Boot Camp, School of Infantry, and a fleet infantry unit will not be level I, II, and III of an FPS.
My unit went through a computerized simulation before our deployment to Iraq in 2003.
:)
;)
Disclaimer: I'm active-duty Army (only for a few more days, hallelujah), but I'm not infantry or a "combat arms" MOS. I'm Signal, and have likely spent more time debating OSPF vs EIGRP than being on patrol. MOS25F/Node Center FTW.
As I said earlier, this was back in 2003, so I'm sure the tech has improved a bit since I went through.
Typical exercise involves 6-8 guys in a darkened room. The simulation is projected at one end of the room, and we are arrayed directly across from it. We are provided with M16s, and one person each gets an AT4 anti-tank rocket and M16/M203 grenade launcher. I don't recall if blanks were used with the M16, or if firing sounds were simulated.
Simulation starts with a nostalgic orange/white 3dfx splash screen. They wouldn't let me near the console PC, so I'll never know if it ran on a Voodoo5 6000.
Everyone is in either a crouched or prone position, and we are greeted with picturesque dunes. A Soviet-style armored vehicle rolls across the screen, slowly meandering towards our posision. Nobody does anything. Bah, everybody's frozen up, I thought. I take the initiative, and start unloading my M16's magazine into it. Sure enough, everyone else does the same a few seconds later.
Fun fact: 5.56 mm rounds have no effect on armored APCs. After being enlightened of this by the instructor, the simulation is run again. This time we get infantry swarming at us from over and between the dunes. We engage, and shoot at squad based groups for a few minutes. A running tally is maintained, and we are told our scores at the end. As expected, we were all wildly inaccurate (I blame sensor calibration), with the exception of the M203 guy, who managed to rack up a sizable percentage of kills. Who needs accuracy when you have grenades?
Since then, training has been heavily modified to focus more on "modern" threats, but I don't think I should go into particulars.
I especially like how the report was later confirmed that the four children died of the result of those beatings, and on the video it is apparent to see that one had already "expired" by the applied "cleansing ritual" remeniscent of that little episode in Vietnam when the US Army bombed civilians. I like that pool of blood coming from that one dead kid's ear, that it looks like he kinda suffocates in as well. Or even better was how the one kind they were really beating up on, his wounds worse than the Rodney King beating, gets a loud smack right on the crown of his skull by that baton.
Ha ha. What is funnier than all of this, is the post above the parent post in the reply that says for this "offtopic shit" to get out of here. Ha Ha... "Die", "naughty boys", "die". Yes, demonize the pebble-throwing children because their parents are out working for a living to make any protest on foreigners putting road-blocks and checkpoints on their land. Iraq is a free country, as long as you have a gun in your hand and everyone knows you are willing to use it and there are people on your shoulders just like you. This is all unlike the United States and the United Kingdom and the United Nations (those Freemasons realy know how to pick all the cool names, unlike "Iraq" and "Canada" eh?) that would just assumed everyone peacably assembling was rioting
Yeah, we know that same example above doesn't apply to the United States (not the United States of America or The United States of America in the Articles of Confederation mind you). The United States is a peace-loving NATION, not plural States United for a common defense.
God bless(ed) you. What are you going to do with the blessing(life)?
No video game will be a complete "warrior" training simulator until the video game can physically punch you in the face.
They don't respawn when they get killed, and they
will run out of ammo and run in circle looking for stim packs
and extra ammos. So. Scary.
... I just keep thinking back at the Brits' attempt to subdue Ireland in the 1800s. They had vastly better technology (...and you better BELIEVE that Private Smith discharged his Weapon at the pike-wielding Paddy when ordered...) but, as a contemporary stated:
"...the half naked peasants of a few counties of Ireland, without arms or ammunition, or any other leaders than those there was not wisdom to deprive them of, their misery and their despair, could wage war and gain victories over the most costly army of Europe."
-- Memoirs of William Sampson (1817).
Sure it's better to have better-trained troops than not-so-well-trained troops, but America's problem right now is at the strategic, not the tactical, level.
--- Attorneys Assisting Citizen-Soldiers & Families -
As I recall, the kids who did the Columbine massacre had a higher percentage of accuracy than many seasoned police officers.
At the time, I seem to recall that they were saying that the sheer number of FPS games they had played had contributed a large amount to their, er, effectivenes. Mostly because they had long since overcome any aversion to firing at human targets, and had a highly developed ability to do this.
I'm not saying FPS games caused this to happen, but if the military uses these things to desensitize people, then one has to wonder how much people are being trained for these things without knowing it.
It's quite scary to think that an entire generation of kids would be more skilled in combat situations than trained soldiers are -- for the simple fact that they've already shot at more human shaped targets. It reaffirms my discomfort with the kind of games my nephews play.
Kind of creepy when you think of it.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Video games have had a big effect on tank gunners too.
I read (a few years ago; can't find the reference now) that the US Army has run the same hand-eye coordination test on every tank gunner recruit since WWII. The average score didn't budge from the 40s all the way to the early 90s, when it started to improve. By the late 90s, average scores had so dramatically improved (doubled if I remember correctly) they were considering revising the test.
They believe that this improvement is solely due guys growing up playing video games.
Another infomercial with no basis in reality. All I can say is typical abuse of public trust.
Their training and video games are drastically different from Halo 2. So much so that a comparison cannot even be made.
this article helps me understand our problems in Iraq and elsewhere in two ways
1. The technology in games has facilitated a revolution in the art of warfare
Ok, from a Sun-Tsu like perspective of warfare, yes, having the best war games is something that a victorious warrior would do. But, these video games are a very poor substitute for real field simulations. It is dumb to think that video game simulations are significantly better than field work.
2. When the time came for [a solider in training] to fire his weapon, he was ready to do that. And capable of doing that. His experience leading up to that time, through on-the-ground training and playing 'Halo' and whatever else, enabled him to execute
If this statement is true, then FPS's, and really all games that simulate killing should be more regulated. I don't think that myself, but the logic of the military, specifically that playing Halo-like games makes it significantly easier to kill a person in warfare, would lead to that conclusion.
I disagree with the general and his view of the benefits of video game sims. I definitely think video simulations have an effect, but if you know Sun-Tsu, you know that the environment is one of the determining factors in warfare, and this eliminates that aspect completely, no matter how hard they try, it's true. I would like to see a comparison between the number of incedents where the US soldier did not kill when military training and code dictated that they should and relate that to whether the soldier had played or used various types of fps/military simulations or had only non-video game training.
Thank you Dave Raggett
"I was PARALYSED, convinced I was going to get killed any minute, and tried to stay as low as possible (just like any guy would) ..."
Actually this is not true. Everyone handles emergency and high-intensity stress situations differently. Where one may be paralyzed, and unable to respond quickly, another may be able react instantly and mentally/physically deal with the situation.
The beautiful thing about all this is that humans can be conditioned to handle the intense situations. Look at ER physicians, and nurses who have to be level-headed in a crisis situation.
Video games develop more of your twitch-sensitivity and ability to analyze multiple inputs at once. If you have ever played unreal tourney for 6 hours straight, you tend to feel a sense of mental exhaustion if you are an intense player. You are thinking about the guy in front of you, behind you, next to you, above you, the health pack you need, the door opening, there goes the flag etc.. Certainly not akin to the real world, but it trains a mental skill, which is useful in combat.
One of the biggest problems people face in war is dealing with pain, and not freaking out. You can handle the insanity mentally from external inputs, until you have an immense overwhelming internal input (i.e. a burning pain). Good training for this is to experience hand-to-hand combat, and learn to deal with less acute pain on a long term basis. It develops your ability to mentally deal and ignore the pain and push on to perform. Vale tudo has helped me with that. At first when i was pinned and being kneed and punched, I didn't know what to do, I just covered up and tried to ride it out(which doesn't work). But over the months of training I learned to think effectively and respond appropriately while taking some blows to ge tout of the situation.
My two cents
-- Solid Snake meeting Raiden, referring to that whiny metrosexual on his first mission with nothing but VR training under his belt.
This was simultaneously a very humorous and clever way of smacking the player into realizing that there is a vast difference between war in video games and real war; yet, that the wars of video games assist real-world warriors by desensitizing them to violence... The blunt irony of that conversation was probably lost on more people than it should have been, and I imagine a lot of impatient fools skipped over it as being "just another damn cutscene"...
Is Capitalism Good for the Poor?
Sorry thats terrible I did not realize that the children died, I thought they just got their ass kicked alittle.
Where he then proceded to type "Power overwhelming" into an invisible keyboard, and ran at the enemy screaming "You can't kill me!"
No-one's seen him since.
6) The helmets don't do jack against headshots; they only help against frag taking off your ear or something. 7) Even if you take a headshot, there's always next round. 8) If your team is doing too good, someone on the other team is bound to call you a hacker. And he will be pwned shortly afterward due to the lapse in concentration. 9) It's a good thing when someone on your team is hacking. A very good thing. OTOH, the TKing noobs are much worse for you.
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
They can use CS, add de_aztec btw heh. The problem is this war thing is much mroe complicated than just about killing the other team. There're lotsa money going on, lotsa jobs. Lots of people die in a war, but very many also gain from the war. If we start fighting wars using CS, or the newest DoD:S, many people will be angry with you and wallhacks j00 with awp.
For example "Foreign Ground" http://www.gamespot.com/news/6137237.html
Since this discussion has pretty much touched on every other aspect of actual war and fps video games, I wanted to touch upon this one.
Since there do seem to be so many people in here with military experience, I would like to hear some opinions on those games that are not only battle situations but 'reenactments' of real battles- I keep seeing ads on tv for ones from WWII, D-Day and things like that. And it just seems to me to be somewhat disrespectful, you know? To trivialize what the men who fought and died there went through. Their sacrifice and the horrors of war. And I could be very wrong, I know. But when I think of those old veterans, living with their memories, it just seems wrong to make a GAME out of something like that. To do it for fun. but that is just how it seems to me.
So what do you think?
US Army has done studies during and after WWII to evaluate the efficiency of a foot soldier in a fire fight. They found out that soldiers are more mentally sane than usually believed as near 50% of them didn't manage to pull the trigger. They prefered to do other needed task, carrying munitions, taking wounded behind the lines. It was the "I really don't aim well, sir" syndrom. From this point in time, the training has tried to raise the proportion of happy-triggers. They have reached 90% during the vietnam war.
Brainwash is the most vital objective of today's military training.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
I don't think a videogame attitude is a good thing for soldiers. Of course it helps them lose awareness that what they are doing, really, is killing people. Reminds me of some of those videos we've seen of US military in action in Iraq: their comments really sounded like they thought they were kicking ass at some LAN party. Or the guys interviewed in the Michael Moore movie telling what music they listened to in their tank to pump up during the fights.
Soldiers should remember that they are fighting wars, and killing people: if they forget that they become (expendable) tools that can be used for any purpose.
You /.'ers consider yourself followers of truth that espouse science as a form of discovering knowledge, but when it comes to the most prevalent of human behaviour, violence, you hide behind political agendas and step-toe around the issue like a right-wing nut job discussing sex and evolution. It's hypocritical.
Also, I remember a few months back too where Gandhi was found out for being a racist and sleeping with young girls on Penn & Teller's Bullshit. But you don't hear the progressive Gandhi-loving collective mention that do you?
What you say about getting soldiers past the point of firing (or firing AT something) is true, and the DoD has known about it since WWII, and changed training methods specifically to get past the 90% rate of ineffective fire they saw there. Bullseyes were replaced with more man-like targets and many more sophisticated changes were made. The resulting shift in effective fire to near the 90% level is credited by the professor of psychology at Westpoint as the reason for the increase in post-traumatic stress disorder after Vietnam.
Anyone really interested in this subject should read On Killing, because it covers the subject very well and even talks about the role of FPSs in the "training" of civilians. You may not agree with its contents, but it may change the way you think about modern warfare.
Put identity in the browser.
how well the game can simulate a peace-keeping mission, or a hearts and minds one, where the object is to stay out of trouble, defuse situations, and NOT kill anyone.
If you train at killing continuous targets, then everywhere you go you will see the people as continuous targets. America has enough trouble already with friendly fire - do we want more?
Oh yes, DO ignore the obvious. --Dick Cheney DOES in fact benefit from the war he helped to engineer. This is a cold truth. So what, exactly, about that is mythical? Hmm?
Regarding your comments about sending troops into fire zones. . . How does this resonate with the comments by the previous poster? --That is, the fact that war and war training turns normal people into psychotic lunatics?
To fight the 'bad guys' in Bosnia or 'protect' elections in Africa, you agree that turning people into permanently deranged psychotics is a viable solution? To fight the beast you must become the beast, eh? Isn't there a little loop-hole in that logic?
Think: If most people don't want to kill other people, then it stands to reason that we don't need to worry so much about people getting killed by people. Perhaps we ought instead to determine which of the small percentage of humans are really psychotic lunatics and then deal with them. --Or at the very least, not elect them into government positions. But I am sure that idea will be hard for most muggles to grasp.
In any case, please cut it out with that Left vs Right nonsense. Anybody who can't see why that idiot dance is pure distraction has their eyes glued shut. Psychopaths rule the world. You either play the fool and play along, or put your foot down.
-FL
Well - if I'm ever on a plane which for whatever reason suddenly has no pilot, I hope to god there's at least one flight sim addict on board.
Aim? Who needs aim? They invented automatic weapons for people like me that don't feel like aiming. :)
(Got your joke. For the rest of you fully automatic weapons don't 'aim themselves'.)
Firing full auto isn't even remotely like what you see in the movies. Depending on the weapons rate of fire and design, recoil can be very difficult to control. HK MP5's are used by many LEO's because their slow rate of fire (600 rounds per minute "rpm") and ergonomics make them very easy to shoot accurately. The MAC M11/9 is the same caliber (9X19mm) but is much harder to control because of its high cyclic rate (1300 rpm) and a very shooter unfriendly design. Using the M11/9's suppressor as a front grip only works for the first magazine. After that you fry your hands. Holding the trigger down and 'hosing bullets' only makes sure your weapon is black and you're in the process of reloading when the bad guys pop out of cover and make you dead. Bursts of two or three aimed rounds are more effective than hosing it. Even the pig gunners shoot bursts to conserve ammo and prevent overheating their barrels. The M16 rifle has a built in 'burst limiter'. You can only fire a three round burst then you have to lift your finger and pull the trigger again. This is to aid in fire control and annoy people with good trigger disciple since the burst unit doesn't reset when you release the trigger in the middle of a brust.
Battle field noise, the smell of power smoke and the mechanics of aiming and firing your weapon are all part of military training. The training areas are wired with artillery simulators, smoke pots and other training aids. At a minimum you have to develop situational awareness, team work and an understanding of the right tactic to use. After 3-4 days of 20 to 22 hour days in the field staggering around in the night with 40-50 pounds of gear through knee deep mud and closely grown vegetation just remembering which hand is your left hand is difficult.
Things you don't experience often in training are picking up your buddy's body parts and dropping them in the body bag with the rest of him. Going through his pockets and putting his stuff in the personal effects bag. You don't often smell the combination of puke-feces smell of ruptured intestines or the smell of rotting blood in your fighting hole Some people die in training accidents and the DoD makes the use of them to teach you how not to get dead.
The games train tactics. They are not the only training being done. They can't simulate the physical demands of combat or the muscle memory involved in most basic solders tasks. The combat simulators for infantrymen make use of wrap-around panoramic displays and simulate firing special weapons like the javelin missile or the stinger. They train how to use a specific weapon.
Games like the FPS developed by the army are intended to get the recruit trained in maneuver and fire. The games teach them to use cover and concealment to move and shoot. The games teach them not to get too focused on what is in front of them and be aware of what is behind them.
Imagine: A soldier watches his comrade get shot right next to him and rather than the old movie days of grabbing a shoulder and getting him away from combat yelling "don't die on me man!" all the way, he just proclaims "Learn to bunny hop noob! Circle strafe ftw!" and runs off into the fray.
So universal involuntary service would be better? Maybe a 4 year tour between high school and college? Oh if they get a paycheck they are still mercenaries? So lets have four years of unpaid involuntary service then...so now aren't they slaves?
The volunteers that served in the civil war like my mom's great grandfather in one of the Delaware Regiments killed people to free the slaves and he got paid. So now you seem to think serving for pay is wrong? My Dad's older cousin fought in North Africa and died on D-day+5 in Normandy. He got a pay check too. My father was in Korea and Vietnam. He collected a check 'til the day he died. My older brother was in Vietnam. He got a pay check for that too. I was lucky my term of service occurred when the only shooting people on a regular basis for government pay was in Columbia and South America and I got paid for that.
Every one of you needs to think back over what a mostly volunteer military has done for you over the last 100 years. And you need to wonder if the current batch of people in Iraq are there for the paycheck or if they are there because they think people that would kill random folks out in our streets are wrong.
The same people that sent 19 highjackers to the US want to bring shira law to the US. Under shira law the establishment of a religion is required of the government. Remeber they invented the janissary.
Pay in our blood up front to stay free or, pay in your dhimmis blood to be slaves.
wow, I really didn't think I would see vale tudo referenced on slashdot. Good to know I'm not the only geek that participates.
I personally have had several friends and family members serve in the military in positions where they did "pull the trigger," and not one of them is "psychotic" or even mildly dysfunctional. In fact, those who I know that have served in the military are commonly MORE socially functional than those who are not. Good job with the propaganda though; might wanna make sure you've got some truth to ground it next time.
What, me? Never.
Politburo, your choice of a handle speaks volumes about your politics.
The soldiers say in their own words that...
So because Private Snuffy, the article 15 king, said it, that makes it official SOP for every swinging d*ck in country? What part of 'cherry picking' do you not understand? Go talk to enough stupid straight legs just out of AIT and you'll find one that will tell you they are not simply authorized to but are fscking required to cut off enemy KIA's nut sacks to keep as souvenirs.
We were trained to drive vehicles slowly with out revving the engines to minimize our sound signature. To move purposely and quietly with out talking on the march. When we practiced manned a defensive perimeter or were in an ambush position we stayed for hours alert and silent in our fighting positions.
It is bad enough that we had to dress up all funny and wear a distinctive marking to suit LOAC. So the bad guys can recognize us at a distance. Make extra noise is a bad thing. Prior to moving out we'd jump around and make sure our gear didn't rattle. Nothing made noise. You could get you and your buddies killed because your canteen sloshed as you walked.
Listening to loud music on a mission would distract you from your assigned task, alert the enemy of your approach and could prevent you from hearing inter unit communications.
God help us if the terrorists are able to get quad-damage before we do!
Uncle Sam: is this a wise move? I mean the dudes I play halo with couldn't take anyone in a fight.
-makoffee
So does every grandmother, labor union, charitable foundation, anyone else that owns a 401k or mutual fund that happens to include businesses that happen to do business in, around, or even indirectly related to any of the industries that play a role in the DOD's activities.
.
.
Your argument is utterly unrelated to the point in question. --The point being that one of the main reasons Cheney and Bush's crew in general started their war was in a deliberate effort to reap direct financial reward; from forcing the public to spend billions of tax dollars on weapons contracts from their own companies and the companies of friends, as well as to force the public into paying ludicrously high oil prices from which they, (Cheney and Bush, etc.), of course also get a cut. You can try to dress this up as the kind of savvy we should encourage in our leaders, but the criminal courts have another word for this kind of activity.
But aside from your flawed logic, (the mainstay of war mongers and neo-cons), there is something even more disturbing in your words. .
It sounds suspiciously to me as though you actively endorse the idea of wholesale murder for the sake of profit. Perhaps I am wrong. .
Still, it would come as no surprise to me if you not understand when I say that people in love with war are, to use a technical term, Fucked In The Head. Seeing as the brain must be used to understand itself, those with brain damage cannot reasonably be asked to recognize when they are, Fucked In The Head, so you'll just have to take my word for it. --Though since you clearly like to cherry pick words and ideas while ignoring the less agreeable points, (a classic symptom of the Fucked In The Head personality), I somehow doubt it'll do much good.
Likewise, anyone with an interest in not having the global economy further disturbed, in the long term, by having thugs like Saddam not only running a major fuel source but invading neighboring countries to control more of it, benefit.
Ahem. Saddam was helped into power by the C.I.A. --What does this tell you? --Probably nothing, so I'll illustrate it for you: With the Middle East in a permanent state of chaos, it is possible to manipulate the power structures over there so that all the oil wealth and profits from weapons sales flows neatly into U.S. (personal) coffers. Get it? Hell, you probably think that's a good thing.
Things would definitely have been tidier for Clinton if he hadn't been buddies with corrupt chicken farming industry types in the South, or hadn't handed out criminal pardons like candy to people sending checks to his campaigns and presidential library, too.
Also typical of the Fucked In The Head personality is the assumption that everybody who recognizes their, uh, condition, also thinks that Clinton was a hero. I ALREADY told you once; Those who remain stuck in the Left vs Right distraction are being chumped by the Good Cop, Bad Cop game. Get over it. And please try to use your eyes when you read my posts.
This is complete crap. There are people that want to kill people. Some of them even manage to take over countries, and use that country's resources to that end. Just like we need cops who can deal with the small minority that kill, rape, steal, intimidate... we need a military that can deal with the that same behavior when it plays out on a larger scale. And just like cops have to know how and when to use deadly force, so does a soldier or marine.
Ahem. Please see my words regarding cherry picking ideas and words. Your insistence on deliberate mis-interpretion so that you can continue your brainless rantings would be funny if I didn't think that there was an actual person out there, (you), who can make the world a shittier place for those of us who are not, Fucked In The Head.
I am not contesting the point that there are dangerous people out there who are killers. They exist. I said so already. --And I have no problem in
Let me get this straight. . .
You're telling me that people who, without question, kill other people for no arguably good reason and have no problem with it, are somehow not dysfunctional?
Right. Gotcha.
On a related note, psychopaths are often very charming and socially appealing to be around.
I'm not saying that your friends and family members are psychopaths. But I will say that mimicing psycopathic behavior is pretty stupid, and often the result of manipulations by a psychopath.
In the end, if it looks and smells like a rose. . .
-FL
Like this? Splinter Cell will teach you everything you need to know about counterterrorism and women!
Apology offered.
1. I misread your post. I'm sorry I didn't get your point. I ran your comment and the previous Michael Moore post together in my mind. So I agree today I am a fucking idiot.
2. I jumped to the conclusion that a "progressive" handle and a Mikey Moore quote meant a supporter of his work. I keyed on the "in their own words" part of the quote.
I'm barely able to make sense of what it is that you want to say. The safety measures are necessary in the holodeck to make sure that no one actually dies in the real world. Games don't need such safety measures because your real physical body isn't being harmed as it would in a holodeck without safety measures.
Hmmm... Pie...
no -- the 280 here in Silicon Valley is exactly like Outrun as far as I can see.
I think you hit the nail on the head.
/some/ basics of strategy.
;) and it was a painfully hot day (for England standards) and when the time came to actually play the first round i was useless. I ran and hid behind what i thought was cover, i maybe fired 2 shots before my gun jammed, i was stuck and didn't know what to do.
I've played countless FPS shooters ranging from storming up the Normandy beaches in Medal Of Honour (complete with 5.1 i was blown away) to shooting "n00bs" in Counter Strike and all they have tought me is
I went paintballing last year and it fully hit me just how different the body is when it has to physically work with the mind to try to convey a strategy. I had been out the night before and had very little sleep (war sleep deprivation?
Eventually as the day went on we managed to compose ourselves and we started working like a team. If we had to play the same scenario twice then we released what was good and what was bad and adapted our strategy to it.
A prime example of this was me and a good friend of mine opting to flank right down a tunnel full of inflatables on each side (for cover) and i ended up shouting to him to move out whilst i was giving him cover fire and he did the same. Maybe that was due to our experience of playing FPS's i don't know but there's no way to experience that sort of adrenaline rush and experience sitting at my computer.
Funny thing: I've driven the 280, but never played outrun.
Irrational? You clearly don't read posts either. I used the phrase, "Fucked in the Head," rather than, "mentally dysfunctional," because I figured he'd understand it more easily given the level of reasoning he'd already demonstrated.
How's your head space?
-FL
That's not what I said at all. Not even a tiny bit. Please re-read my post to determine what I did say.
I find it curious that consistently those who are supporters of war also seem to have problems with reading comprehension. Either they only see what they want to see and act accordingly, (with disastrous results), or they really do try to understand but genuinely have trouble doing so. In either case, the results are similar.
Further, when a debate goes against their position with any force, they tend to run away. This seems strange for people who are pro-war, who I would have thought welcome conflict. Perhaps it's not that they like conflict so much as they like to destroy that which frightens them and if they fail to do so, hide and pretend the opposing view is not there.
-FL