Tactical Video Games
- Thread starter 1911_Mitch
- Start date
- Status
Operation Flashpoint was actually a pretty good way to learn the basics of land nav.
It also forced you to plan, instead of giving you a scripted scenario and making you jump through some hoops.
None of those games will ever replace actual range and shoothouse time, but they might help some folks learn some things that they might not have otherwise.
And I can think of few better ways to kill time...
It also forced you to plan, instead of giving you a scripted scenario and making you jump through some hoops.
None of those games will ever replace actual range and shoothouse time, but they might help some folks learn some things that they might not have otherwise.
And I can think of few better ways to kill time...
JamisJockey
member
NMshooter said:
Like shoot/don't shoot. Where bad guys might be hiding. Clearing corners and fatal funnels.
Dragun said;
For recruiting purposes. Happened before I retired. Americas Army was developed and paid for by USAREC strictly to generate interest in the Army among a certain target population.
The military has used modified computer games for years. I still have a copy of TACOPs somewhere around here. Developed by a Marine Major, it was a very good way to teach Air Land Battle at Brigade level and below.
I'm still waiting to see which off the shelf videogame a military or police organization is using as a training tool. Modified ones don't count.
Jeff
For recruiting purposes. Happened before I retired. Americas Army was developed and paid for by USAREC strictly to generate interest in the Army among a certain target population.
The military has used modified computer games for years. I still have a copy of TACOPs somewhere around here. Developed by a Marine Major, it was a very good way to teach Air Land Battle at Brigade level and below.
I'm still waiting to see which off the shelf videogame a military or police organization is using as a training tool. Modified ones don't count.
Jeff
Although not as good, a few video games over the last couple years have begun to show some similarities to the simulators used by military and law enforcement. I think playing a GOOD game can teach you SOME things and hone a FEW skills important to force on force situations.
A die hard XBOX live gamer would be much better off in certain situations than someone with no training what so ever.
Allow me to explain. Games can vastly improve a persons hand eye coordination. A decently put together game is atleast as good as reading a book about tactics. Also frame of mind is very important.
It is not a replacement for training but as shown by law enforcement and military personel, it is excellent for honing certain skills.
A die hard XBOX live gamer would be much better off in certain situations than someone with no training what so ever.
Allow me to explain. Games can vastly improve a persons hand eye coordination. A decently put together game is atleast as good as reading a book about tactics. Also frame of mind is very important.
It is not a replacement for training but as shown by law enforcement and military personel, it is excellent for honing certain skills.
Creeping Incrementalism
Member
Operation Flashpoint is the only First Person Shooter I've ever played that I would call realistic. That's the same thing the Marines are using, slightly modified. The principal programmers are all ex-Czech Army, so they know a lot more about shooting than your typical programmer...
Jeff White, I don’t know why modified games don’t count. If what was needed for training was so drastically different, a new game would be made. I think the public game would be fairly close. Anyway, I know that the "souped up" version of Flashpoint has been released for public sale, but since it costs like $300+, there aren't too many buyers.
In Op. Flashpoint You can jog, sprint (and get tired) or crawl, shoot from prone, kneeling, or standing, use a variety of weapons, use cover and/or concealment, command a squad, and also ride in/command/drive/be a gunner in vehicles, ships, and aircraft, though only the infantry stuff is realistic. The main issue I had with it was that recovery from a single aimed shot takes only about two tenths of a second, so you could fire about 300 RPM with the same accuracy of single aimed shots, and also that weapons of the same class were identical--e.g., AK-47 was just as accurate as an M16. Also there are no jams. And a LAW/RPG is so accurate you can hit tanks 600 yards away once you figure out the ballistics… but mostly it was pretty good.
I spent a lot of time modding the weapons to make them more realistic, and when I finished, it actually started to "feel" like real shooting... almost had as much fun making quick shots with an AK in the game as I did in real life. And I made the weapon damage more realistic--M16 is much more lethal than an AK (at least at closer ranges). Anyway, once I felt I had more realistic weapons, I was satisfied to learn that the tactics that worked best in the game are the ones I've read work best in real life. For example, it's almost never worth it to go full-auto on a rifle, but it can be with machineguns, especially on high-deflection shots on moving targets. But eventually I got good enough at estimating lead with a rifle that it didn't matter too much. Hope I don't sound too much like a keyboard commando.
I also played a lot of CounterStrike (generally a multi-player only game). The only realistic thing about that is that semi-auto fire is more accurate than full-auto, and the importance of teamwork is emphasized. Mediocre players working together will defeat fantastic players that aren't coordinating. But with that game there’s lots of cheaters, and everybody is so juvenile—the typical player is a 15 year old snotty jackass—that I gave it up. It would have been fun to find some more mature people willing to work together as a team—would have really kicked the crap out of those punks! (I felt that most “clans” were either way more into it than normal people have time for, or else were just cliques that your typical asinine punk joined to feel special).
Jeff White, I don’t know why modified games don’t count. If what was needed for training was so drastically different, a new game would be made. I think the public game would be fairly close. Anyway, I know that the "souped up" version of Flashpoint has been released for public sale, but since it costs like $300+, there aren't too many buyers.
In Op. Flashpoint You can jog, sprint (and get tired) or crawl, shoot from prone, kneeling, or standing, use a variety of weapons, use cover and/or concealment, command a squad, and also ride in/command/drive/be a gunner in vehicles, ships, and aircraft, though only the infantry stuff is realistic. The main issue I had with it was that recovery from a single aimed shot takes only about two tenths of a second, so you could fire about 300 RPM with the same accuracy of single aimed shots, and also that weapons of the same class were identical--e.g., AK-47 was just as accurate as an M16. Also there are no jams. And a LAW/RPG is so accurate you can hit tanks 600 yards away once you figure out the ballistics… but mostly it was pretty good.
I spent a lot of time modding the weapons to make them more realistic, and when I finished, it actually started to "feel" like real shooting... almost had as much fun making quick shots with an AK in the game as I did in real life. And I made the weapon damage more realistic--M16 is much more lethal than an AK (at least at closer ranges). Anyway, once I felt I had more realistic weapons, I was satisfied to learn that the tactics that worked best in the game are the ones I've read work best in real life. For example, it's almost never worth it to go full-auto on a rifle, but it can be with machineguns, especially on high-deflection shots on moving targets. But eventually I got good enough at estimating lead with a rifle that it didn't matter too much. Hope I don't sound too much like a keyboard commando.
I also played a lot of CounterStrike (generally a multi-player only game). The only realistic thing about that is that semi-auto fire is more accurate than full-auto, and the importance of teamwork is emphasized. Mediocre players working together will defeat fantastic players that aren't coordinating. But with that game there’s lots of cheaters, and everybody is so juvenile—the typical player is a 15 year old snotty jackass—that I gave it up. It would have been fun to find some more mature people willing to work together as a team—would have really kicked the crap out of those punks! (I felt that most “clans” were either way more into it than normal people have time for, or else were just cliques that your typical asinine punk joined to feel special).
Last edited:
Blackhawk 6
Member
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2003
- Messages
- 439
I was involved in the development of FSW as a training aid. It was largely considered a failure.
Lone_Gunman
Member
---
shooten
Member
I don't know about tactical training but playing FPS has helped my tennis game. I can see the position of the other players at a glance and make a split second decision on where to put the ball. Truth. That's about it. I still need to be able to hit the ball correctly and recover. Those abilities take athleticism and practice on those particular skills. Video games will never replace that. Xbox live is a blast though.
beerslurpy
member
One thing I would like to add. Most people here seem to be referring to single player FPSes and console games. I am referring entirely to multiplayer-only FPSes like CS, BF and RB6.
Yes, people who respawn will take ten times more risk than people who only die once* and there are countless other inaccuracies inherent in online playing. But I dont think that detracts from the general usefulness of seeing how thinking human beings interact with their environment while attempting to kill you. At the very worst it will provide ideas possibly useful for the real world.
One thing I dont get is how there isnt a ton more friendly fire in real life. What if the other guys are wearing the same style BDUs as you?
*hilarious examples of suicidal behavior I saw or participated in from BF2:
-loading a jeep full of C4 and driving it suicide bomber style into a group of tanks to take them out
-aiming a soviet transport chopper at a blackhawk that was landing and parachuting out (mostly) a moment before it hit
-running after tanks to toss C4 or mines onto them
-parachuting into the enemy base to steal their vehicles
Yes, people who respawn will take ten times more risk than people who only die once* and there are countless other inaccuracies inherent in online playing. But I dont think that detracts from the general usefulness of seeing how thinking human beings interact with their environment while attempting to kill you. At the very worst it will provide ideas possibly useful for the real world.
One thing I dont get is how there isnt a ton more friendly fire in real life. What if the other guys are wearing the same style BDUs as you?
*hilarious examples of suicidal behavior I saw or participated in from BF2:
-loading a jeep full of C4 and driving it suicide bomber style into a group of tanks to take them out
-aiming a soviet transport chopper at a blackhawk that was landing and parachuting out (mostly) a moment before it hit
-running after tanks to toss C4 or mines onto them
-parachuting into the enemy base to steal their vehicles
Creeping Incrementalism said,
Because they aren't the subject of this thread. Games that have been modified to be used as a training aid aren't readily available to the public. No one is saying that games designed or modified to be a training aid aren't capable of teaching something. But many of the ones either designed from the beginning to be training aids or modified to be training aids don't do a very good job.
How long were you an Infantryman and where did you serve? I asked in an earlier post for people to tell us what personal experience they had with the real thing so that we could judge how realistic they are. I was in the Army from 6 Dec 74 thru 31 Oct 03. I served in every duty position in an Infantry company from rifleman to First Sergeant.
Did you mod the weapons effects so that splinters from trees, rocks and other things on the battlefield can produce casualties? How about the difference between cover and concealment? Does your terrain map provide micro terrain that will allow a prone soldier to get out of the line of fire? How about the ability to engage targets from unconventional positions; i.e. supine prone, SBU prone.....? How long do the batteries in your NODs last in the game? Can you pass items of equipment between soldiers in your game? Do your machine gunners ever lose the T&E mechanism on the way to the SBF position? Does the gas cylinder on your M60 ever break when you fire the first round initiating an ambush? Can you fire your LAWs and AT4s from any position? Could you injure or kill one of your own soldiers in the backblast from one of these weapons? Are you able to fire wire-guided missiles across water? Do the other soldiers in your electronic fire team ever get tired, scared and combat ineffective?
imas said;
What game is as good as what book? Rainbow Six as good as FM 7-8? Counterstrike as good as Infantry Attacks?
beerslurpy said;
Don't the limitations of how much of the environment you can model get in the way of learning too much? You're in an artificial environment just like you are on a paintball field. You don't get any of the subtle little clues that may make you look in a certain direction. You can't see the flash of an un-natural straight line through the leaves as the wind moves the branches. The electronic soldiers don't cough, spit, sneeze or exhibit any other traits that may let you know where they may be hiding. They don't smoke, and you couldn't smell their tobacco if they did.
You can use a game to teach a specific lesson. You can't learn much more then how to be good at the game by just playing it, either against the artificial intelligence that's built in or another gamer. For the most part the lessons you learn there will be applicable to the game, not real life.
Have fun with them, they are fun, but don't think that you're preparing for war, you're not.
Jeff
Because they aren't the subject of this thread. Games that have been modified to be used as a training aid aren't readily available to the public. No one is saying that games designed or modified to be a training aid aren't capable of teaching something. But many of the ones either designed from the beginning to be training aids or modified to be training aids don't do a very good job.
How long were you an Infantryman and where did you serve? I asked in an earlier post for people to tell us what personal experience they had with the real thing so that we could judge how realistic they are. I was in the Army from 6 Dec 74 thru 31 Oct 03. I served in every duty position in an Infantry company from rifleman to First Sergeant.
Did you mod the weapons effects so that splinters from trees, rocks and other things on the battlefield can produce casualties? How about the difference between cover and concealment? Does your terrain map provide micro terrain that will allow a prone soldier to get out of the line of fire? How about the ability to engage targets from unconventional positions; i.e. supine prone, SBU prone.....? How long do the batteries in your NODs last in the game? Can you pass items of equipment between soldiers in your game? Do your machine gunners ever lose the T&E mechanism on the way to the SBF position? Does the gas cylinder on your M60 ever break when you fire the first round initiating an ambush? Can you fire your LAWs and AT4s from any position? Could you injure or kill one of your own soldiers in the backblast from one of these weapons? Are you able to fire wire-guided missiles across water? Do the other soldiers in your electronic fire team ever get tired, scared and combat ineffective?
imas said;
What game is as good as what book? Rainbow Six as good as FM 7-8? Counterstrike as good as Infantry Attacks?
beerslurpy said;
Don't the limitations of how much of the environment you can model get in the way of learning too much? You're in an artificial environment just like you are on a paintball field. You don't get any of the subtle little clues that may make you look in a certain direction. You can't see the flash of an un-natural straight line through the leaves as the wind moves the branches. The electronic soldiers don't cough, spit, sneeze or exhibit any other traits that may let you know where they may be hiding. They don't smoke, and you couldn't smell their tobacco if they did.
You can use a game to teach a specific lesson. You can't learn much more then how to be good at the game by just playing it, either against the artificial intelligence that's built in or another gamer. For the most part the lessons you learn there will be applicable to the game, not real life.
Have fun with them, they are fun, but don't think that you're preparing for war, you're not.
Jeff
How about this Mod?
http://www.truecombat.com/intro.php
This is a mod for Wolfenstein Enemy Territory. Okay, it's built off of the Quake 3 engine, so it's a bit aged. Then again that means it will run on most anybody's system. Plus the server system is built right into, so if you want to run your own LAN? Perfect.
The thing is the game is free, the mod is free. And it's cross platform. Their whole deal has been realism. Though the past year or two they have sacrificed some for gameplay.
Anyway, the topic of games used for training. I agree it's not the same, if it was the same, well someone already stated we'd just trade in for PS2's.
I suppose you could argue the simunition systems are a good FPS, but they are hardly mainstream. And they cost more than the majority here would spend on a car. Anyway I have nothing else to add, it's all been said.
http://www.truecombat.com/intro.php
This is a mod for Wolfenstein Enemy Territory. Okay, it's built off of the Quake 3 engine, so it's a bit aged. Then again that means it will run on most anybody's system. Plus the server system is built right into, so if you want to run your own LAN? Perfect.
The thing is the game is free, the mod is free. And it's cross platform. Their whole deal has been realism. Though the past year or two they have sacrificed some for gameplay.
Anyway, the topic of games used for training. I agree it's not the same, if it was the same, well someone already stated we'd just trade in for PS2's.
I suppose you could argue the simunition systems are a good FPS, but they are hardly mainstream. And they cost more than the majority here would spend on a car. Anyway I have nothing else to add, it's all been said.
F.E.A.R. taught me a lot of valuable tactics, like using my superhuman slo-mo power to shoot my own grenades in the air, so the concussion kills invisible ninjas. Also, it's important to have your medical gear readily available, so you can heal yourself while you drop off a balcony or slide-kick eveny soldiers.
The only truly realistic video game is Soldat. Standing, kneeling, prone or flying around with rocket shoes, only n00bz use the Barret.
The only truly realistic video game is Soldat. Standing, kneeling, prone or flying around with rocket shoes, only n00bz use the Barret.
jamz
Member
It will be realistic the same day that they include a quicksave button on every soldier's loadout.
-James
-James
RiverwinoIA
Member
i thought of soemthing that could make FPS games useful for civilians..
if you made a map that was an exact replica of your house/property, then had some friends play you in the map, you would "learn" your home and property better. it seems in the game i play (CS), knowing the map is vital. Being surprised is what gets skilled/trained people killed.
if you made a map that was an exact replica of your house/property, then had some friends play you in the map, you would "learn" your home and property better. it seems in the game i play (CS), knowing the map is vital. Being surprised is what gets skilled/trained people killed.
Creeping Incrementalism
Member
Jeff White said:
VBS1 is used by militaries and is also available to the public (though it wasn't at first). The U.S. Marines have used it. And seeing as how the subject of this thread is “tactical video games”, I don’t see how a computer game that was slightly modified and then used by militaries isn’t what this thread it about, even if the training version wasn’t now available to the public. People who've used both said the military version is a waste of money because it doesn't have a lot that the game doesn't have.
That's all I'm saying, and considering the capabilities of computers, I think Flashpoint (VBS1) gives you a good idea of running, stopping, taking aim, hiding, using cover, crawling, when to reload, suppressive fire, and working that into tactics. Of course computer-controlled players can be dumb, but the game is also multi-player capable, and that's mostly how its used for training, I believe. Though I saw something on TV about how the Marines were using it "single-player" to train artillery spotters.
Sorry, I'll never question your judgment again, since I've never been an infantryman. I say the game is good because it jives with all the first-hand accounts of combat I've read. But, as I said, all the designers were in the infantry, so I'd say they know what it's like, too. I say it’s realistic because shooting a gun "feels" like the real thing, breathing hard from running makes it hard to hold a gun steady, things of that nature. Other games aren't like that. I'm not saying its virtual reality. But it is certainly much better than more arcade-like games, such as CounterStrike.
Regarding your laundry list. I could only modify accuracy, recoil, and damage (those bugged me, but I'm not saying they were terribly unrealistic to begin with), and I already said the game doesn't allow jams (hopefully the next version will have jams). No, the game doesn't have splinters. Falls, collisions, drowning, and being run over also cause casualties. Yes, there is a difference between cover and concealment. Yes, on the high terrain levels, there are little dips you can use to gain more cover. I already said firing positions are prone, kneeling, and off-hand standing. Yes, you can pass equipment between soldiers. No batteries to worry about for night vision goggles. LAWs/AT4/RPG etc. fired from kneeling only. No backblast. No wire-guided weapons, it's all fire and forget or unguided. Yes, soldiers get tired from running. Wounds to the legs will only allow them to crawl, and wounds to the hands make it difficult to hold a weapon steady. AI units will flee, but soldiers under your command won't (of course if you are playing multi-player, all bets are off). You didn’t ask this, but hand grenades explode on impact—they don’t have timed chemical fuses. So it does miss some things, but on the whole I’d say it’s pretty good.
One thing about the game that is particularly unrealistic is the flight model, and I'd know as I have multi-engine, instrument, and commercial airplane ratings. And armored vehicles aren’t that realistic--little attempt at replicating fire control (like wire-guided missiles are actually fire and forget), armor thickness is the same on all sides, etc. So that stuff isn’t so great, but it’s an infantry-oriented game anyway.
I got blasted by rifle fire in Flashpoint and could only crawl. This was at night, and the Sov's were sweeping up the small valley towards my position. I am crawling as fast as I can, trying to use the trees for cover, and when I stop to rest and look around I can see an armored vehicle downslope. The searchlight is on and is splashing around the trees, looking for me, and the Sov's are getting closer. 5 rounds of ammo left in the gun and I am nowhere close to safety. Enemy armor and ground forces are all around me. Nothing else to do but hide in the bushes and wait for them to get closer. A bad guy walks right by me and I cap him with my suppressed gun. Took his weapon and ammo and crawled away as fast as I could. It took a long time, but I eventually made it to safety. Now, do I confuse everything I did above with some actual training that could help me survive a war? NOPE! It is all just a very fun way to pass the time.
Creeping Incrementalism said,
Feel free to question my judgement any time you like. I don't even pretend to know but a small percentage of what someone needs to know. I made my comment about experience because THR is an open forum, anyone can register and post. And anyone can surf in here and read what's posted. I try to keep Strategies and Tactics as real as possible. So I asked that anyone who comments on how realistic a game is, tell us what their experience is. Hopefully that will keep someone who comes here looking for good information from confusing the posts of a 13 year old gamer who is very enthused about his new game, with information from someone who may actually have some real experience.
But the designers have a vested interest in the product they put out and while they are probably very proud of their work, they might not not be the most objective. After all, they want to sell their product.
It sounds better then any game I've tried, but to get to the point where you can get a lot training value from it, it needs to cover more of the items on my laundry list. One of the ways I think games like this could be used is to train junior leaders in rudimentary tactics and planning. Sort of make your plan and then let the scenario run. The Rainbow Six games allow you to do this, but don't let you pass equipment between soldiers etc.
You make my point for me and hopefully now you understand why I have such a low opinion of these games as training devices. When he first started writing, I devoured everything Tom Clancy published. When Clear and Present Danger was published, I was a little disappointed because his writing about the ground operation to take out the drug labs in Columbia wasn't up to his usual level of technical accuracy. But I overlooked that, figuring his real expertise was with submarines and aircraft. Then I met a retired Navy Captain who had commanded destroyers and he told me Clancy got all kinds of things wrong and could stand to read him. Made me wonder.
I think sometimes we confuse entertainment (especially well executed entertainment) as education. I don't know many nurses who think much of ER and I don't work with many police officers who watch cop shows (Reno 911 makes the cut, good comedy), most soldiers dn't have a high opinion of FX's new offering Over There. And shows like CSI are actually making jury trials more difficult because the educated public now thinks there should be DNA evidence and all the other high speed forensics on every case they get.
Jeff
Feel free to question my judgement any time you like. I don't even pretend to know but a small percentage of what someone needs to know. I made my comment about experience because THR is an open forum, anyone can register and post. And anyone can surf in here and read what's posted. I try to keep Strategies and Tactics as real as possible. So I asked that anyone who comments on how realistic a game is, tell us what their experience is. Hopefully that will keep someone who comes here looking for good information from confusing the posts of a 13 year old gamer who is very enthused about his new game, with information from someone who may actually have some real experience.
But the designers have a vested interest in the product they put out and while they are probably very proud of their work, they might not not be the most objective. After all, they want to sell their product.
It sounds better then any game I've tried, but to get to the point where you can get a lot training value from it, it needs to cover more of the items on my laundry list. One of the ways I think games like this could be used is to train junior leaders in rudimentary tactics and planning. Sort of make your plan and then let the scenario run. The Rainbow Six games allow you to do this, but don't let you pass equipment between soldiers etc.
You make my point for me and hopefully now you understand why I have such a low opinion of these games as training devices. When he first started writing, I devoured everything Tom Clancy published. When Clear and Present Danger was published, I was a little disappointed because his writing about the ground operation to take out the drug labs in Columbia wasn't up to his usual level of technical accuracy. But I overlooked that, figuring his real expertise was with submarines and aircraft. Then I met a retired Navy Captain who had commanded destroyers and he told me Clancy got all kinds of things wrong and could stand to read him. Made me wonder.
I think sometimes we confuse entertainment (especially well executed entertainment) as education. I don't know many nurses who think much of ER and I don't work with many police officers who watch cop shows (Reno 911 makes the cut, good comedy), most soldiers dn't have a high opinion of FX's new offering Over There. And shows like CSI are actually making jury trials more difficult because the educated public now thinks there should be DNA evidence and all the other high speed forensics on every case they get.
Jeff
In any simulation, it will only serve to train users to the extent that it is realistic. For a tactics simulation, a tactic should work if and only if it works in the real world. That's a very high standard to live up to, and real simulators have to constantly be tweaked as clever users find ways to cheat. No commercial video game even tries to live up to that standard, because video games are designed to be fun and accessible.
Creeping Incrementalism
Member
Jeff White said:
I'd say there's a spectrum of games that run from total emphasis of fun at the expense of reality, to those that emphasize reality because some people find reality is fun. I'd say this is the latter.
About me making my point for you--the thing I'm experienced in (flight model/physics) isn't modeled well, so it seems likely that the aspect I'm not experienced in (the infantry "trade") is likely not modeled well--I don't think that logic follows. The game was designed from an infantryman's perspective by infantrymen, and since airplanes/helicopters are part of the battlefield, they made them a part of the game environment too, and the designers also held the opinion that all vehicles should be "playable". Airplanes are an afterthought. None of the principal designers, so far as I know, are pilots.
As another example, a flight controller might play Microsoft Flight Simulator 2002 and think that the air traffic control might be generally correct, but vastly simplified, and then conclude that the flight model would be very simplified as well. But that isn't the case, and Flight Simulator was designed (in part) by pilots to approximate flight, which it does a good job of. Air traffic control is ancillary… but getting better.
There are a lot of things Flashpoint could do better in the next version, but I still think it would make a good supplement to field training pretty much as is, as do the Marines. Of course maybe they junked it and I don't know but last I heard they were still using it.
IRONFIST, I don't see how crawling away in real life when you are injured and fleeing from the enemy, or shooting a badguy with a suppressed weapon if he gets too close is the wrong lesson learned. Though there are times when the "detection level" or whatever it's called isn't quite right, and I say to myself, "now in real life that guy would see me for sure" but in the game he doesn't know you're there . (Though this is mostly used multi-player for real training [not to say multi-player isn’t available in the game version] so you can't get away with taking advantage of the computer soldier's weaknesses.). So I hope you get the idea--gives you a decent idea of what it's like to fight as a guy with a gun, but has limitations
KriegHund
Member
RiverwinoIA said:
Thats a dang fine idea! I oughta do that in Delta force 2 or landwarrior. gotta love the map editor... Which leads me to this-
The original Delta Force (By novalogic) was largely based off an FPS game made for the military.
*edit*
A good reason many games arent as realistic as they could be is because its HARD. Die in one hit, no saves, little ammo, etc etc makes things hard.
Some people dont like that. Personally, ide love a realistic game, assuming i had a darned fine computer to run it on (some day). The next real advancement in 'realistic gaming' will be 3d goggle type stuff, electric shock when hit type stuff.
Creeping Incrementalism said;
You misunderstand what I was trying to say. Being a pilot, you recognized that the flight part was poorly modeled. It would be harder for you to recognize the deficiencies in the Infantry part of the game. On the other hand, I would only have what I have learned from reading and perhaps talking to real pilots to draw from if I were going to attempt to judge a flight simulator game. I might not know that the flight parts were poorly modeled, but you picked up on it right away.
I will take your word for it that Microsoft Flight Simulator 2002 is a good simulation. I'm sure that given my total lack of real world experience flying an aircraft, that my opinion wouldn't be as informed as yours.
Krieghund makes a good point about games that are very real wouldn't be popular because they wouldn't be as playable and therefore not as fun and they probably wouldn't sell.
Like I said in an earlier post, we need to be careful that we don't mistake entertainment for education.
Jeff
You misunderstand what I was trying to say. Being a pilot, you recognized that the flight part was poorly modeled. It would be harder for you to recognize the deficiencies in the Infantry part of the game. On the other hand, I would only have what I have learned from reading and perhaps talking to real pilots to draw from if I were going to attempt to judge a flight simulator game. I might not know that the flight parts were poorly modeled, but you picked up on it right away.
I will take your word for it that Microsoft Flight Simulator 2002 is a good simulation. I'm sure that given my total lack of real world experience flying an aircraft, that my opinion wouldn't be as informed as yours.
Krieghund makes a good point about games that are very real wouldn't be popular because they wouldn't be as playable and therefore not as fun and they probably wouldn't sell.
Like I said in an earlier post, we need to be careful that we don't mistake entertainment for education.
Jeff
Feanaro
Member
I'm not a soldier, I don't have extensive training with [insert guru/school], and I'm not the best shot in the world. But I came to the world of firearms with a gaming background and I think video games helped me with some concepts and ideas. Slicing the pie? I was familiar with it already, without knowing it. Everytime I entered a room in a shooter, I sliced the pie. When playing with friends, we divided rooms up and gave everyone a little piece to cover. Teamwork is essential in some of these games, as in life.
The flip side is that when you have 12 health left, you aren't really hurt or pumped with more adrenaline than you can shake an eight-ball at. You are playing a game, so you will tend to use strategies that win the game. When someone threw a 'nade into a room in Medal of Honor, I often charged 'em. Worked, too. I doubt I should try that on a real SWAT team. And you don't really die. (Strange how no one complains that simunitions training will only be realistic when you aren't allowed to play again after losing. No one says anything about the lack of gaping holes in vital organs either.
Of course, there is far more actual training value in that activity.) And any of the twits that think America's Army teaches kids "sniping" should seriously try it. I WISH game time translated to trigger time.
Video games are of very, very limited use on their own. They are still very limited if you have real training. But I think that if you actively attempt to use it as a training device, for teamwork and some tactics, you could get something out of it. You'd need a firm grounding in reality first.
The flip side is that when you have 12 health left, you aren't really hurt or pumped with more adrenaline than you can shake an eight-ball at. You are playing a game, so you will tend to use strategies that win the game. When someone threw a 'nade into a room in Medal of Honor, I often charged 'em. Worked, too. I doubt I should try that on a real SWAT team. And you don't really die. (Strange how no one complains that simunitions training will only be realistic when you aren't allowed to play again after losing. No one says anything about the lack of gaping holes in vital organs either.
Of course, there is far more actual training value in that activity.) And any of the twits that think America's Army teaches kids "sniping" should seriously try it. I WISH game time translated to trigger time. Video games are of very, very limited use on their own. They are still very limited if you have real training. But I think that if you actively attempt to use it as a training device, for teamwork and some tactics, you could get something out of it. You'd need a firm grounding in reality first.
Creeping Incrementalism
Member
Jeff White said:
I understand what you're saying. My idea is that since the guys who made the game were infantrymen, not pilots, the odds are better that the soldier stuff would be better than the airplane stuff.
Anyway, last I heard the Flashpoint sequal will come out next year sometime, so you might want to try it if your computer is capable.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked