Are videogames training us to be soldiers?

If my record in COD4 is anything to go by I'd make a great sniper in real life!

second line

reply to post by VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep

Are videogames training us to be soldiers?

Depends on the games you play.
(Be patient through the ads.)

Originally posted by Ophiuchus 13
reply to post by VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep

 

They are if you want a good discription PLAY METAL GEAR SOLID. Its a old 1 from xbox but the deeper you get into it, it explains how the player Snake or Raiden have been thru v.r. virtual training as kids to prepare for the war. Fast forward to the HALO series MY FAVOTRITE DOWN LOAD you can see what is being taught. Play left 4 dead and you get zombie training play resident evil you get UROBOROS TRAINING. Rainbow six or SPLINTER CELL MY FAVORITE. SPLINTER CELL TEACHES YOU HOW TO HACK AND PROGRAM. These games would be a great way to embedd the concious, smh my daughter likes killing zombies and my son loves the MASTER CHIEF and killing the floods me I am a fan of Pheonix from Gears of War locust killer lol.

edit on 9/21/10 by Ophiuchus 13 because: (no reason given)

?!

Depends on the game, first person shooters desensitize children, Inform them of weaponry and make them trigger happy.

One blistering afternoon in Iraq, while fighting insurgents in the northern town of Mosul, Sgt. Sinque Swales opened fire with his .50-cal. That was only the second time, he says, that he ever shot an enemy. A human enemy. "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! " remembers Swales, a fast-talking, deep-voiced, barrel-chested 29-year-old from Chesterfield, Va. He was a combat engineer in Iraq for nearly a year.

This is the video game generation of soldiers. " 'Ctrl+Alt+Del,' " the U.S. Army noted in a recent study, "is as basic as 'ABC.' " And computer simulations -- as military officials prefer to call them -- have transformed the way the United States military fights wars, as well as soldiers' ways of killing.

"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 him" -- meaning Swales -- "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."

Straight from the horses mouth.

Source

reply to post by Serizawa


Nice find.

I find it amazing that, although there is all these reports, and studies, there is still some people that question this.?

I am not saying that playing these games will make you a soldier, but it does give you an advantage over the guy that never played one.

VVV

Originally posted by VreemdeVlieendeVoorwepI am not saying that playing these games will make you a soldier, but it does give you an advantage over the guy that never played one.

Definitely. Shooter games teach you basics like leading the target and bullet drop. Some games even teach you about breathing techniques and ammo conservation. I'm sure it's all different when you actually have to hold a gun, posture your body, and squeeze a trigger. Although I imagine in the near future such games might become indistinguishable from the real thing.

Violent vids are training people to kill..And worse.

There is no doubt that violent vids are training people to think taking a life is OK.

Whether that is war or whether that is murder. And wars are murder.

Did someone ask GW Bush if he plays video games ?
Actually, now that you think of it, main game studios are american.
And in some games, you have to go set up a nuclear bomb.
Looking back at the past, USA is the only country that ever used nuclear bombs on civilians.
They'll even teach you how to survive nuclear fallout.
So maybe the problem isn't about gamers, but about american gamers.
And I'm not even talking about the dangerous school grounds over there.

reply to post by Chrysalis


We cannot say that different countries react differently to video games, we cannot only point fingers at the Americans.

Who's ever played the game fallout? Has to be the weirdest game I've ever played with reference to a future nuclear war and civilian volts. Kind of what was planned in case America was attacked by Russia after WW2. It even has music from the 40's and 50's creepy game.

Fallout 3 is an awesome game, but that's what it is, a game, entertainment for rich western kids.
Funny thing is that one of the first story branches is wether you gonna blow that first village with a nuclear bomb or not.

Playing video games has it's benefits, but it's more like the "theory" of something, but some people get to think that gaming skill = real life skill, i mean, how bad can a zombie outbreak be if i have beaten all Resident Evils? Those who can't take video games for what they are shouldn't play them, i can't help but wonder what kind of education and life does a person have to say that a zombie outbreak or a massive nuclear war would be awesome things that could happen because they would get to do what they did in a game, chancers are, you could be one of the first to either turn into a zombie or die to a nuclear blast.

My own opinion is that the digital gaming industry is so lucrative, primarily in westernised culture, that it thrives on the production and creativity of ever more 'virtually real' gaming concepts. I also understand that most digital giants try use the initiative of presenting the user with the facility of experiencing something resembling reality but without the physical exposure of that reality.

When you consider games like HALO, COD and MGS, among many, they are primarly aimed at engaging the user by reaching the 4 key components to imitate reality: Visual, Audio, Sensation (vibration) and active thought.

I'm not a 'gamer', never have been and never will be because of my own discretions but I know from experience and having watched friends get involved with these games enough to make my own judgements. What should be considered here is what purpose the games like those, as mentioned above, actually serve. I don't believe that the gaming population are being prepared or conditioned to become soldiers, that's utter nonsense. Are there any soldiers currently on ATS that would like to offer their opinion on this? Does being an exceptional 'gamer' make you a potential super soldier or sniper? I severely doubt it.

I do not doubt that the knowledge of tactics, strategy, weaponry gained through gaming is certainly very valid and lends itself credibly to the factors applied in real life, but what might be amiss here is the human element. I am taught that a common conception within military is that 98% of the soldier is the human element, the rest the remaining 2% is what a soldier is trained to do.

I am also taught the human experience is massively different to that gained through gaming and I would hazard a guess that a vast proportion of ATSers professing to be good potential soldiers would be pleasantly or unpleasantly surprised at the reality of what the human condition is exposed to in an actual war zone.

It would be naive to believe that the abilities demonstrated during game play would even remotely compare to actual requirements on the field. The psychy is alligned with knowing, sub-consciously, whatever the outcome of your game you will still be alive, coherent and function just as you did prior to spending time on that game. In a real war-zone however, the psychy is alligned very differently where behavioural patterns alter dramatically and conscious thought engaged through careful training might indeed contradict your own survival instinct.

Both are comprehensively different and non-comparable.

reply to post by Chrysalis


Maybe just a game but it also programs you it a certain sense, I mean nothing they do today would surprise us, We've seen it all before in the movies and games.

The original version of fallout featured Morphine and the developers would later have to change the name to Med-X.
In the Japanese version of the game they had to change the name of the bomb from 'the fat man' to 'Nuka launcher', Fat man = Nagasaki Nuclear Bomb.

MGS was basically about the NWO and the rise of biological warfare, cyborgs etc. I find it funny that the small robot was named MK-ULTRA. Microchips, DNA guns, HAARP etc......it didn't disappoint.

reply to post by BAZ752

I'm not a 'gamer', never have been and never will be because of my own discretions but I know from experience and having watched friends get involved with these games enough to make my own judgements. What should be considered here is what purpose the games like those, as mentioned above, actually serve. I don't believe that the gaming population are being prepared or conditioned to become soldiers, that's utter nonsense. Are there any soldiers currently on ATS that would like to offer their opinion on this? Does being an exceptional 'gamer' make you a potential super soldier or sniper? I severely doubt it.

You are not a gamer, never have been and never will be. You are not a soldier, never have been and never will be.
You do deliver a very convincing theory and I appreciate your take on this discussion. However, having no direct experience of either one of the two topics, I do believe your take on this matter is a bit biased. You are however entitled to your own opinion, a very good one at that, but I tend to disagree.

And I never said the game will make you a super soldier or sniper. It does give you an idea though of the weapons and tactics used on real battlefields. Like stated earlier, I completed my two years compulsary military service way back in the day. I do play fps games online. I can say that some of the tactics in some of these games do mimic real life situations rather well. Like taking cover, or blind firing from a cover position. These are just very basic examples.

So yeah, games wont make a fat lazy gamer into a super soldier. But it does give you some knowledge as to what you are to expect, weopon and tactic wise.

VVV

Well, assuming you're talking about FPS. First you have the "solo" games. There, you face bots which are notorious for their lack of realism and blatant stupidity.
So you just get off making fun of bots, or you actually fall in the trap : the games wants you to feel good.
But that's just solo and there's not much ground for comparisons there.

Here comes the multi, where you actually battle against other humans.
Then, there can be 1v1 or team game.

In 1v1, of course you want to prove you're better than your opponent.
The problem is that there's only one spot at the top and I have yet to see the military recruit him, if only to pilot drones. Which would be the most suitable spot for a gamer, but sad luck, I think only confirmed pilots can operate them.
In 1v1 the thrill is even more intense when you play on LAN and can actually look at the face of the guy you just beat.
Beat in a game.
It's about fun, and sometimes about competition. And escaping reality too sometimes as the games gives you another set of rules that are different from your common reality.
Multiplayer outside of the competitive arena is mostly crap since the outcome is often determined by bigger numbers or better gear.

Which in fact is like current wars. Where one side will basically bombs the cra* out of the others.
Look at US vs Irak, US vs Afganistan, Israel vs Lebannon, Israel vs Gaza.

Nowadays, wars don't engage two opponents of same strength. There's one that is vastly superior and takes advantage of the others weaknesses.

In video games, all gamers start with the same potential, level, etc...

So, the most desensitised are not the gamers, but the ones that remotely kill innocents, those drone operators and all that military tradition of stripping the individual off the characteristics that make him unique to turn it into a brainless killing machine.

Games don't make wars, people do. And wars have been on this rock way before computers were invented.

It depends on the game but it doesn’t train you, it conditions you. The two main effects are that you are conditioned to see the man facing you as a target and nothing more, and conditioned to associate killing him with winning and therefore pleasure. In this respect some games do the Drill Sergeant's work for him.

Fast-paced shooters have been recently proven to reduce reaction times in those who play them frequently.

reply to post by Serizawa


I'm not quite sure about that. Some countries have a tendency to produce exceptionnal players.
Some other population have a natural tendency to get together and work as a "hive".
Some will rule one type of game while the others just keep on fighting to try reach the same level.

Then, on a final note I'll tell you why even if your statement were true,it wouldn't work :
simply because the best FPS players are not americans.

PS : and they don't play on consoles.

Originally posted by VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep
reply to post by BAZ752

 

You are not a gamer, never have been and never will be. You are not a soldier, never have been and never will be.
You do deliver a very convincing theory and I appreciate your take on this discussion. However, having no direct experience of either one of the two topics, I do believe your take on this matter is a bit biased. You are however entitled to your own opinion, a very good one at that, but I tend to disagree.

And I never said the game will make you a super soldier or sniper. It does give you an idea though of the weapons and tactics used on real battlefields. Like stated earlier, I completed my two years compulsary military service way back in the day. I do play fps games online. I can say that some of the tactics in some of these games do mimic real life situations rather well. Like taking cover, or blind firing from a cover position. These are just very basic examples.

So yeah, games wont make a fat lazy gamer into a super soldier. But it does give you some knowledge as to what you are to expect, weopon and tactic wise.

VVV

Respectfully, VVV , I must point out that I have not disclosed that I have participated and completed RAF Regiment training and have been taught the rules of engagement. I also did not say that I have NOT had experience playing some of these games, because I have. Though, it would probably equate to less then 20 hours of my life which in gaming terms is nothing, I grant you. But I consider a gamer to be a person that commits more than several hours a week exclusively to playing games, like a hobby, if you will.

Sorry if you felt that my comment was directed at you, it was more a rhetorical response aimed at captivating a number of responses in the same vein.

Indeed, I welcome that your opinion may differ to mine - particularly from your own experience, but in my appeal, my opinion is not biased. It's probably more, what shall we say, not as richly informed as it could be?

reply to post by BAZ752


Thank you mate, i appreciate it.

I apologize for assuming that you had no military training, sorry. Assumption is the mother of all f ups.

And I appreciate your opinion on the matter. It is nice to hear the other side of my own person believes too, otherwise I tend to get to wrapped up in my own believes. You have shown me your point of view, and although it is rather different from mine, I still think you did make a valid point.

Thanks

VVV

reply to post by VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep


No, not at all, VVV, it's refreshing to know that all opinions are taken in the right context and that we continue to debate in these ways. The internet as of late is quite a hostile place, I'm sure you'd agree?

On another note, take a look at this link

and also this: link

Please note that I do not know whether these links have been used on another topic on ATS before so I'll apologise in advance if they have.

They're worth a look and certainly lend credibility toward the gamer having the fundamental requirements such as quick thinking, reaction times etc. etc.