It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Are the latest war video-games, actually a war simulation platform for the military?

page: 2
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by xXxinfidelxXx
 


or you could still be a covert agent posing as a disinformation agent.




posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 11:27 PM
link   
Well if the military use the info you will soon see, the supercomputer will take all te info and make a simulation, in the simulation it wil call it self 1337^_^Haxz0r and simply run around with a knife, jumping a lot.



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by yourmaker
 


I hate to break it to you, but video games don't begin to vcover even the most basic principles of warfare. Please, stop kidding yourself, you're giving me a headache. Videogames are like a charicature of war. Get it through your head. Playing a video game will not lead to you knowing any more about war than reading a comic about it. It's propaganda-based entertainment and that's ALL IT IS. The fact that you think such things tells me that it worked, too. Tell me honestly, do you think the depiction of war in the movie :"Saving Private Ryan" was accurate? Most civvies I speak to say it is the most realistic war movie they have ever seen, but the funny thing is, it's laughably inaccurate. When it comes down to it, too, if they could make a video game or a movie that was even remotely like the real thing, it would not be something you would want to see. Most people would probably impulsively throw up upon viewing the real thing, even from a safe distance. You need to realise that sitting on the couch with a controller in your hand is a world away from actually being where the metal meets the meat.



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by randomname
 


Oh yeah, stick with that little hilarious possibility. See how far that gets you. what are you, 12? Everything that I have authorized the public to know about me is on my profile page, either look at that, or shut the hell up. Take your pick. If you really think I'm bull#ting you, wait 10 years, enlist and put your money where your mouth is. Otherwise your opinion on the topic is no more valid than that of Paris Hilton.
edit on 27/2/2012 by xXxinfidelxXx because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by yourmaker
 


I disagree, the way people play theese games are mostly run and gun, even with a sniper rifle, everything about the games is unrealistic including damage, the player can absorb way too much damage even in the more realistic hardcore modes where there is no health regenaration and more bullet damage, so the only place where the military would gain knowledge is to see how people would feel in a unrealistic combat scenario where airstrikes and air support respond in seconds and bullets dont do that much damage.



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by AlanQaida
 


lol Yup that's the only way to know for sure. But that would explain why they have marines doing extra burpies these days lol.



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by yourmaker
 


Could it also be considered a virtual training ground ?
Teaching young mostly western males between 15 and 45 years of age to familiarise themselves with military weapons , urban warfare scenarios and tactics , improving hand eye co-ordination and environmental awareness.
I would not denote anyone in the military by pretending this was the same as actual combat training but in the event TSHTF it would be an interesting use for conscription don't you think ?



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by xXxinfidelxXx
reply to post by AlanQaida
 


lol Yup that's the only way to know for sure. But that would explain why they have marines doing extra burpies these days lol.


Haha maybe, but your right, 95% of "gamers" have no idea what a combat situation is like, not just about dodging bullets, but seeing what your bullet does to a persons head.

Maye a few war gamers need to go wander through some shot up villages or towns. See how they feel when they stumble over bodies, or what's left of bodies.



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 11:48 PM
link   
Im sure the ArmA - Armed assault series or a version of it was used for training purposes at one time.
Great game, very difficult..



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Drezden
 


I don't know if you actually played that game but it sucked, even as a recruiting tool. It was glitchy, the animations were choppy, graphics were so laughable (even for an original Xbox game) that they made Halo look like Crysis in comparison. America's Army has got to be one of the worst games I have ever played. When you finally get over the laughably bad gameplay, they make you sit through all of their qualification courses, with nary a checkpoint among them (the sniper qualification caused me to break 3 controllers before I gave up and snapped the disc to save myself any further trouble.Sometimes the OpFor could see you through walls for chrissakes. Which is incredibly annoying when one enemy observation of your movements means game over, and guess what, there are no checkpoints in that mission) Even in the core gameplay, the checkpoints are so far apart that it makes them extremely aggravating. I'm just glad that game was so crappy though, to be honest with you, as they didn't sucker as many potential recruits into signing their lives away as they could have if it was actually playable lol. I remember seeing one of the America's Army recruiting tractor-trailers during a visit to Buffalo, as well, and you know what the recruiter told me? "Oh yeah man, you like that video game? Well you should join the army, cause it's exactly the same!" If I wasn't a fat 12 year old at the time, and he wasn't a buffed out recruiter (they have to look the part), I probably would have decked him at that point, as even at the age of 12, with (obviously) no military experience, I knew that he was full of sh t.
edit on 27/2/2012 by xXxinfidelxXx because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 12:17 AM
link   
reply to post by AlanQaida
 


It's not what the bullet does to the guy that you're shooting at that messes with you. It's the women, the children, as well as the ever-present threat of near-certain death. Those are the things that really mess with you. Also, people don't seem to realize that war happens at a completely different pace than videogames, as well, as, if you made a videogame that was exactly like war really is, nobody would play it, as you would spent hours doing nothing, punctuated by seconds to minutes of sheer terror. I don't know about you, but I don't think that game would sell very well lol, especially when that kind of hopelessness cannot be conveyed through a TV screen. When you take into account, also, that quite a few of our boys die on the MSR between the airport and their posting and without ever seeing the enemy, that would be a pretty anti-climactic game if you ask me. Picture this, you go through a 3 hour cutscene, showing you disembarking from the plane and mounting the vehicle, followed by getting hit by an IED, and "Game Over" lol. People would be pissed man. I honestly think a game like that would cause riots in the streets.



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 12:46 AM
link   
I play war videogames, ranging from real-time strategy to first person shooters.

Do I see them as simulators? In the sense that they are based on real world things, yet restricted by the limitations of both gaming technology and production.

I don't think the critics really play much of video games to make a substantial judgement here.

You don't learn how to pick up a gun and fight in a video game, but you learn the basics of combat- specifically, the basic "rock paper scizzors" method of how military tactics work. You learn the feeling of where, how, who, when and why to strike targets.

If you're a gamer who is now on a real battlefield somewhere, and you've just been tasked with coming up with a quick strategy to defeat an opponent, you'll probably be more on the ball than somebody who only knows textbook strategy straight out of training.

And some games are definitely more realistic and "simulative" than others. The best simulative features are obvious using real-world equipment in games to get a feel of how they would engage in real life. The whole political ideology in games is crap, but it definitely helps with manipulating minds of young soldiers who aren't politically concious on their own.



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 12:46 AM
link   
double post

edit on 28-2-2012 by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 01:04 AM
link   
Jesus these comments are hilarious

"war simulators"

My god. As if a controller and a TV screen could ever "simulate" anything. Comparing CoD and BF3 to war simulators? What a joke. All video games serve to do is make kids think they're badasses who know what they're talking about.

I used to be into that. Until I actually joined the military and realized how stupid video games are.

Unless you're drunk.
edit on 2-28-12 by reaxi0n because: typo



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 01:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Nick_X
 


You played Medal of Honor AA?

Everyone plays the games to have fun and play with friends. Many people take games VERY serious and them getting pist makes me laugh and have a good time. My teammate was ranked #1 in Planetside, BF2, BF2142, MAG, Quake, and in games such as COD have over a 6+ kd ratio.

Its simple, know where your enemy is while you stay hidden along with shock and awe. Not really anything that the army doesn't know.



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 01:52 PM
link   
Well sorry to burst you're bubble mate, but british army tactics used on excerise, derive mainly from the World War 2 Era and tactics used on ops are just improvements from what was used against the IRA.



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by xXxinfidelxXx
 


why are you so defensive. is that standard operating procedure for when you are confronted with an accusation that may blow your cover.



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by randomname
 


Why am I defensive? Well maybe because rather than address the fact that you might be wrong, you deflect and make it sound like I am the deceiver here. I apologize if I tend to get defensive towards my topic of expertise, when some snot nosed little kid calls me a bloody disinfo agent. I have no cover to break, and you may cross-examine me all you like, but will only end up looking like a fool. Go ahead. Test me. I dare you. You need to take into account that video games have no basis in reality. The nomenclature and such may be borrowed from real life, but that's where the similarities end.
edit on 28/2/2012 by xXxinfidelxXx because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Laxpla
 


It is absolutely impossible to know where your enemies are at all times, especially considering the asymmetrical nature of modern maneuver warfare. The name of the game is to direct troop movements based on what you know, and to read defensive postures to find a chink in the armour, so to speak. Now, given that most modern conflagerations will not be played out in a force-on-force basis, but rather with one side being massive and high profile, easy to predict, and one side hiding amongst the civilians and in the shadows, attacking when opportunities present and then scooting. And also, when you take into account that the American army and marine corps now have sophisticated tracking systems that show where all blue forces are, and yet there are still many incidents of friendly fire, war is not nearly as cut and dry as most civvies think it is, and the military is not nearly as infallible as it is seen to be. Most of that image is just propaganda, as the US military is spread so thin right now, it would be very bad for you if you were attacked, let's say, tomorrow.



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by xXxinfidelxXx
 


Basically I was talking about video games, and the general concept which can be applied to modern day warfighting in general. Being stealthy. Thats why my friend was ranked #1 in many games, basic principles. Yes there are many factors to take into account other then that but isn't that a good advantage to have? You can learn basically principles in games such as I did, and apply it to real word situations. Of course you can not know where the enemys are at all times, but wouldn't it be helpful if you do know were the general area or where some are? Don't your think we invest in drones, recon planes, sats, and spys for nothing?

Ex. Gulf War I. Spy sats and recon planes pointed out targets, while F-117's which were basically evading the radar at the time bombarded there defenses. That is the point I'm trying to make. See without being seen. Along with Special Forces, they gather as much intel as they can and attack.


"It's not what the bullet does to the guy that you're shooting at that messes with you. It's the women, the children, as well as the ever-present threat of near-certain death."


Nothing will replicate real war as you say it I agree, walking over dead bodies, watching someone get blown up by a IED, etc. Would call it worthless? Wouldn't training exercies such as Red Flag and any exercise in general be useless under your thinking because they don't show the horrors of real war? Its meant to exercise your mind and get ready, training is the #1 most important factor in my book.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join