do video games have any real life benefit

[Double Naught Spy]

My personal opinion is (depending on the individual game in question) could make one rethink strategy, risk vs. Reward, and when it's appropriate to do a tactical reload. I liken it to something I've heard of in the martial arts I believe was called "image training ". The idea being if you imagine a situation it will enhance your response in the real world. JUST curious for your opinions.

I am not sure which, if any, video games that offer situations that are situationaly real world enough, situationally enough to count as image training. Most don't take you through enough bootcamp/weapons handling, strategy and tactics, etc, for the player before the player enters the game Most learn the game through trial and error, developing skills along the way that might be great for game play, but not real world. Being as students are primary self taught, they end up learning more about beating the game than beating real life opponents and pick up a considerable number of bad habits long the way that might not be detrimental to the player in the game, but could definitely be in real life.

If video games have no bearing on honing skills of all kinds, please explain the military's continued development of high end multi-million dollar simulators and unmanned drone technology?

Wii, Playstation, etc. games are just that, games. They offer an entertainment experience, not real world.

High end multi-million dollar simulators aren't games. Video games are not written with proper real world parameters, capabilities, etc. Proper firearm training simulators do try to offer real world parameters at least in some regards.

Simulators/video games can be used to generate automated instinctual behavior in a much more controlled and less costly environment. The real measure of benefits to be cleaned, is determined by the scope of the game/simulator itself and how "real" it can be made to be.

Just because something can be done with a product does not mean it is being done with a product. How many truly instructional games with proper real world parameters do you see being made today? I always like it that when my soldier suffers injuries, if not killed, he can actually recover to full strength and capabilities with a first aid kit, food, and water, all during the course of a fire fight.

But alone it does not substitute real shooting and does not build the physical skills and weapon handling skills to prevail in a military firefight.

Actually it does. It's just that you haven't been exposed to a simulator that replicates all of those things.

I have... and I can tell you they are AMAZING to the degree that they can realistically replicate nearly everything you would encounter in real life situations. Everything from weather, recoil, wind, weapon functionality, etc etc. You name it, they can simulate it on an indoor range with pneumatics, or live fire.

I have used the ones that simulate recoil, bullet drop, etc. The exact name is AGSHP, the German version of the EST 2000 used by the U.S. armed forces. I have also operated the controls to cause the malfunctions for the shooters. I had fiendish fun doing so.

Simulators can do a lot more than games, but still have considerable shortcomings. They can simulate just about any parameters you might encounter? No. The can simulate some parameters on a limited scale.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dgDVoNpH2o - I liked the belt change or malfunction clear here. He seems to be missing some real world steps.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1-unzvARDE&feature=related
http://cubic.com/Solutions/Defense-...Training-Systems/System-Applications/EST-2000
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tgcAiHI42U&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEu3jx0AisU&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uphnzEDGSo

Most of what the training drills on these simulators do is to train they soldiers about handling various types of scenarios from a shooter's perspective of a singular forward field of view with threats never coming from either side or from up much higher than a standing soldier. Soldiers are not running to the location even if the screeen shows a pedestrian change of location. Most of the simulations look like they are teaching the soldiers to engage the enemies primarly from locations without cover and students conduct their fights and never give a second thought to engage from cover. Heck, the students can even be too much on the move either and so most shoot the drills while remaining stationary.

Fight like you train? Then it looks like these soldiers are going to be engaging the moving around and cover-using opposition while they themselves remain upright out in the open and stationary and without bothering to scan the area, forward, sides, and back after they think the fight is over, but at least they will be acoomplished in doing so while enjoying the temperature controlled, dry, dust free, windless air.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJcfAbKqZ4I&feature=related

 

[JRH6856]

Yes they have a real life benefit. Its the closest I'll get to shooting a lot of neat guns I can't afford. Like a Walther WA 2000 with thermal sights. ($75,000+)

And if nothing else they make you at least think some about strategy and tactics and what might work and what might not. Between COD, Battlefield and Rainbow Six, I get a pretty good mental workout. I'm 64 and just a bit past doing all that in real life.

 

[303tom]

NO.............

 

[JohnM]

I played Pong, does that count?

 

[mortablunt]

I dare all the naysayers to pay Operation Flashpoint, Rainbow Six1-3, Metro 2033 (Ranger Hardcore), and America's Army (this one is used as a tool where the best players were actually recruited.)

Video games have more value in teaching basic tactics and cover than in teaching firearms. In certain games like the original F.E.A.R. and the original Gears of war, you got torn apart in very short order if you didn't use cover.

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

Yes they have a real life benefit. Its the closest I'll get to shooting a lot of neat guns I can't afford. Like a Walther WA 2000 with thermal sights. ($75,000+)

You never get to use that rifle for what it was intended to be used for, precision shooting at long range (1,000 yards) so it kind of does a disservice to the rifle.

 

[jim243]

I doubt that I will ever get a chance to buy or even shoot a XM-25 in real life, or a Javlin or Stinger. But it is sure fun to use the XM-25 as a sniper rifle. Will that help my in real life shooting, no but it does save me a lot of cash on real ammo.

Jim

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

Jan Libourel, former editor of Petersen's Handguns and Gun World, once wrote that the video games played by his stepson and friends did not translate to actual handling and shooting of real firearms; they had to be taught just like anyone else. I tend to believe this. And it is my guess (I don't play games) that there are a lot of Four Rules violations in these games, especially Three.

 

[Redlg155]

Can you use video games to learn tactics? Yes. Are they realistic otherwise? No.

I believe that many of our younger soldiers that grew up playing video games have an even greater shock when confronted with the reality real combat. Enemies do not fall dead after a single shot. The stress and heat of combat cannot be recreated, nor can the smell of warm blood.

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

I can see full size video simulations with realistic scenarios for training, but not a depiction of fantasy on a TV screen with a controller that may not even bear any resemblance to a real firearm.

 

[luc4158]

The only useful thing I've ever gotten out of shooting games other than a way to burn time was that when I fired an AR-15 for the first time I found the magazine release and bolt catch myself.

 

[NG VI]

While video game physics of course don't parallel with the real world,

Ever since Half-Life, or maybe even earlier, designers have been striving to create engines that deliver as realistic physics as possible.

Many of them do an excellent job at it, and bullet's aren't a particularly difficult thing to model until you start getting hundreds of yards out from the target.

 

[Sam Cade]

I can see full size video simulations with realistic scenarios for training

..and that is what they are used for.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VBS2

This is from the commercial version of the product, ARMA2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krLtYiChXS8

Listen to the player chatter.

 

[gp911]

They can have a benefit in some areas, may hinder others, and are no substitute for real training/experience. There is a similar commentary regarding driving games. One can learn the layout of the Nurburgring by playing the latest games and pick up some time because the blind curves are no longer a surprise, but it won't make them a world class driver. Still, I won't knock em, they have their place.

 

[HOOfan_1]

vs. 60.00 buck off the shelve technology?

Not that main stream video games compare at all to purpose built combat simulators, but, the military is the sole consumer for the later. Millions of people buy the former.

Main Stream video games cost millions of dollars to develop. Most likely main stream video games cost a good deal more to develop than purpose built simulators.

 

[Justin]

I've spent more hours than I care to admit playing Modern Warfare II & III, Black OPS, and Battlefield 3.

While the games are fun, and may impart some theoretical understanding of basic gun handling skills (reloading is important, if you want to hit a target, you have to aim through the sights, some guns have more recoil than others), it's foolish to think that playing video games will prepare one to actually go to the range and fire real guns at real targets.

Even assuming that you can learn tactics from a game, there's a world of difference between sitting on a couch, holding a light, plastic controller, and passively controlling a character, vs. moving through an actual environment with a rifle that weighs several pounds and quickly getting into and out of shooting positions.

Those physical skills can only be learned by actually doing them, or by engaging in other physical activities like sports or crossfit, and then adapting those learned physical skills to shooting.

If there's one tangible benefit to video games, it's that FPS games, especially the modern military ones, have helped to generate interest in shooting and guns for a lot of Gen X and Gen Y people who otherwise never would have been prompted to learn about them. In that regard, it's been a boon for the 2nd Amendment in general, and military-style guns in particular.

 

[rugerdude]

How about someone learning where a weapon's controls are and how they operate without needing to have the gun in hand?

Not every game shows all of the operating controls of every gun, and many do not allow you to operate the fire selection switch or safety but they are normally still present on the gun in the game.

This could add an element of familiarization that might potentially aid first time operators of whatever firearms. They could perhaps learn advanced techniques more quickly if the weapon is already somewhat intuitive for them to operate having seen it be operated virtually over and over again. It won't be muscle memory, but the key concept of operation is there.

 

[GCMkc]

I found that when I was younger I found a lot of interest in learning more about the guns that are used in the games. I think that it got me into shooting the real deal. Things like Boy Scouts, my father, and my uncles are who really got me into shooting and this is where you gain the REAL knowledge. Plus, shooting at the range is a hell of a lot more fun than playing a video game.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Civilian entertainment first person shooter gun games will teach you about firearms, strategies, tactics recoil, terminal ballistics, and environmental factors like Monopoly will teach you about business.

Just about any game can be analyzed and benefits found that are applicable to real life, but I have my doubts that any video game is going to impart enough real world information that should you just happen to pick up a heat seeking shoulder launched missile one day that you will automatically know how to use it like the kid did who was able to tell Michael Douglas' character what to do with it in Falling Down.

Being a Barrett owner, I am pretty certain that firing a Barrett 82A1 or M107 in a video game isn't even going to remotely prepare you for what it is like to heft one around and fire one in real life or to be near one when it fires in real life without hearing protection and what not. The Barrett isn't the worst of the various firearms out there, but there is a huge world of difference between seeing it on video and then actually firing one.

 

[hso]

I was wondering if any of the fine people that also frequent this site thought there may be any real life benefits from playing different shooting based games.

Not much.

 

[B!ngo]

The great relevant and transferrable value of video games (flight sims, FPS's and the like) are their positive impact on hand/eye coordination and associated reaction speed. If you'll check the ranks of military flight school grads, they are all (well most) video game jocks who likely had excellent hand/eye to start with, but further honed them on these 'games'. And for the less gifted, these games significantly improve their skills.
Separately, and harder to quantify, the widespread use of military/urban simulators bring more brains to analyze and understand strategy and techniques in these situations that likely will bring to breakthroughs in these disciplines. Just as open source has spurred innovation by bringing more brains to computer innovation, and social networking has improved communication and invention with people of like interests, it's sure to do the same in these disciplines as well.
Not going to help with manual of arms or physically handling a weapon other than freeing up brain cycles via other improvements (cited above) to focus on new skills.

 

[exavid]

Sure they do, the make money for the producers and sellers.

 

[raz-0]

vs. 60.00 buck off the shelve technology?

You do realize that $60 video game likely had a budget between $10 and $100 million, right?

Practically speaking, video games can be wickedly efficient learning tools. I don't find them to be much use for improving at shooting because they don't simulate most of the relevant skills. I'm an a class uspsa shooter and a gamer. The one place I have found games to help is with visual processing. There have been points working in improving where I've started overrunning my ability to keep vision one step ahead of everything else. Video games are like a dry fire equivalent for working on that.

 

[leadcounsel]

Absolutely:

Reaction, strategy, timing, tactical reloads, keeping mental track of "shots fired," etc.

Not as good as real life, but when you die you can restart the game/level...

 

[Voltia]

A couple more thoughts.

Most of the people on here are older than the video game generation, and, as such, won't see much use for them. Open-mindedness is not really prevalent here; people are pretty set in their ways, so I'm not surprised.

Secondly, it's interesting that someone pointed out how "running and gunning" "ruined" "serious" games like BF3. I encourage those who only want to play FPS games in a "serious" manner look up an article called "Playing to Win." The upshot of it is that people who play to win play with an adaptive style to best utilize the game. People who don't play to win limit themselves by adding restrictions on how they play, like only in certain groups, with certain tactics. In short "running and gunning" is successful because it works. If something is stupid, and it works; it's not stupid.