Tactical Video Games

[1911_Mitch]

Just wondering if anyone uses any video games to sharpen their tactical skills.

I have played the most recent version of SWAT4 and it is VERY realistic. Player can customize scenario with number and types of civilians and goons. Map scenarios and graphics are very good.

I think these types of scenario games could really help improve ones tactical skills. Kind of like a home version of the "shoot / no-shoot" that LEOs train on. You must clear rooms and buildings, scan, crouch, use tactical light, reload, slice the pie, avoid fatal tunnels, use support equipment, can transition to pistol, etc, etc,.... This is all the same stuff you'd have to think about in the real thing.

Check it out of you have a fast computer. There is a free download version (one customizable mission map) for SWAT4 here:
http://www.swat4.com/us/download1.html

[silverlance]

well...

paintball would probably be better.

that said -

i did learn something from playing games.

just one.

the guy who knows the battlefield best will most likely win (given equal armament and relativey equal ability).

so...

know your house like the back of your hand! in the dark! barefoot!

[dasmi]

You must clear rooms and buildings, scan, crouch, use tactical light, reload, slice the pie, avoid fatal tunnels, use support equipment, can transition to pistol, etc, etc,.... This is all the same stuff you'd have to think about in the real thing.

Eh...no.
None of those things translate accurately from a video game to real life.
And out of curiosity, what, exactly, makes a light tactical?

[beerslurpy]

I've been playing first person shooters since wolfenstein and they all teach you things. The question is whether these things are applicable in the real world.

I find that many tactical FPSes played against other people tend to deviate significantly from reality in the name of game balance and implementability. For example, making a 308 caliber rifle only slightly more powerful than a handgun or a 223. Often a realistic set of weapons will produce situations in which everyone will use only 1 or 2 weapons and ignore the rest. This is because many games are limited by their engines- for example, counterstrike is based off a graphical engine that doesnt do wide open spaces very well, but can do a decent job of corridors and buildings. This results in most encounters taking place under 100 meters on a good day.

They also tend to reward those who best understand the game mechanics. Since everything is an approximation of reality, and a selective one at that, you can profit immensely from understanding this instead of having real world knowledge. This can include ballistics (if any), how recoil is simulated, wall and barrier penetration, the power of the weapons, etc etc.

The only game I ever played that came close to reality was Operation Flashpoint, which was generally boring to play if you died early on, but incredible otherwise. It simulated weapons, ballistics, camoflague, vehicles, everything nearly perfectly. Even more recent games havent provided as gigantic a playing field.

Lessons I've learned from playing video games that are likely applicable in real life?

That staying in one place and trying to ambush people that know you are there will get you killed. They are a moving target, you are a stationary target, they will have an easier time hitting you than you will hitting them. Once you ambush someone, move to a new hiding spot. This is probably less applicable in real life (where people dont respawn and remember how they died), but the bodies of their allies will probably make a great tipoff as to what happened.
The more time you present yourself as a target when running from one place to another, the more likely someone is to notice you and hit you.
Staying still when in combat is a death sentence. Stationary targets are easy to hit. Movement turns an assured headshot into a slim chance of a torso hit.
Attacking the enemy will advertise your location to them. Only attack when you can defeat them or when you can flee without getting killed. Knowing the difference between concealment and cover is important.

[Jeff White]

Here we go again. It wasn't all that long ago since we went down this road:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=146434

Here is the truth. Playing is not training. Training is hard work. If you could really learn how to be a super special forces ninja death dealing door kicking super soldier by playing first person shooter games, we'd close all the military bases and buy playstation 2s for our military and I wouldn't be trying to get the railroad to donate some used ties so we can build a shoot house for the county Tac Team.....

Jeff

[Ryder]

I feel it accustoms you to making quick decisions and reacting under stress. Freezing up is no way to win anything.

There are scientific studies which show it improves brain function. I don't think stupid people are winners. Whiners maybe, but not winners.


For example this study: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/06/050609234142.htm

Seems they do possess an edge over non-gamers. According to the linked article it is 1/10th of a second.

[Adept]

While not entirely relevant, I found Full Spectrum Warrior to be very realistic. You take control of two three-man army squads in a middle eastern urban setting. It's not a first person shooter, so you don't actually shoot things. Instead you order fire arcs and fire types. The entire game centres around making the best use of cover, choosing the appropriate type of action, and denying the enemy the use of cover.

They use a modified version of the game as a training aid for the marines.

[benEzra]

Halo is great for training for zombie invasions. :D

[tc300mag1]

No i play them for fun Halo for space invaders and Doom 3 for well other invaders then dont forget resident evil for zombie invaders

[hso]

Having played first person shooters I don't consider video games to be a good substitute for training. They are intendeded to be entertainment and as such are not focused on teaching skills. They also lack the essential action/review cycle required of training.

[GunnySkox]

So, just what is the best caliber for Imp? I'm thinking .30-06, but I bet you could do it with .22 LR, it's all about shot placement. :D

~GnSx
"Mo' dakka, mo' betta." ~Orky saying

[.45Guy]

I play BF2 just for the heck of it every now and then. The "reality" of the game is enough to raise your bloodpressure!!! Ie. having the sights of your PKM set center mass at 20 feet and not killing the guy!:cuss: :banghead:

[dasmi]

I feel it accustoms you to making quick decisions and reacting under stress. Freezing up is no way to win anything.

Sorry, but I don't think video game stress is the same as "oh ???? I'm going to die right now" stress. There is no respawning in real life.

[RiverwinoIA]

video games are no kind of training at all imo.

people take crazy risks, there are no ricochets/spraying peices of concrete, they involve weapons no civilian will fight with or against (flashbangs, grenades, fullauto rifles, etc)
. if im in a video game and im down to "12 health points", from taking a few 9mm to the legs and lower torso, i can still move, see straight, think straight etc. in real life you would most likely be on the floor crying like a baby.
Also, how many people, in real life, would jump around a corner with a spraying ak-47 just to get a few kills before their next "death"... nobody (well, maybe some allah worshiper).
real life gunfights are much slower paced and people use cover for long periods of time, as there is no round time limit.

[mbs357]

You guys should look up the Unreal Tournament mod Infiltration.
Literally the most realistic FPS ever.

Oh, hey, Waddya know, I gots a link in my sig. ^.^

[dasmi]

Yes, perhaps it's "more real" than another game, but it's still not real. You're still sitting on your butt in a chair, with a keyboard and mouse or console controller.

[RavenVT100]

Games can teach concepts, but they can't train you. Training requires going through the motions and attuning your mind and body to whatever scenario you're training for. That's why the Army uses stuff like Full Spectrum Warrior as a training aid, not training itself.

Don't get me wrong, games are fun and I enjoy them. They aren't real life. And if you talk to gamers, many of them are as anti-gun as you can get.

[TrafficMan]

i've been playing Medal of Honor Rising Sun this weekend. I beat it once, but decided to give it another go.

I shot this Japanese Shoulder at least 4 times with the Springfield '03 and he kept coming back for more!

1st Shot - Head shot, knocked his helmet off

2nd Shot - COM...staggered for a few seconds and then started shooting again

3rd Shot - Leg Shot - started jumping up and down on one leg, resumed shooting

4th Shot - FINALLY PUT HIM DOWN...another COM shot.

HMMMM......

[.45Guy]

This is hilarious, and sums up alot of this debate:~WARNING COLORFUL LANGUAGE~http://media.putfile.com/FPS-doug

[steveracer]

It incorporates levels of realism that are certainly major improvements on any game before. Interactive environment, like cratering walls/floors, enemies smart enough to move furinture around for cover and cover and move under bases of fire. after a few shots into a wall, and the dust/smoke is so thick you can't see. You move very poorly if hit, and die right after. Very creepy/fun to play. You must try it, it freaked me out. But...
...ABSOLUTELY NO TRAINING VALUE!
I've been into paintball for a few years, and have played serious 24hr scenarios with overwhelming success, and even THAT was no training value. (Paintballs don't penetrate sheetrock, for example.)
Time in the sandbox was the only training tool to prepare me for time in the sandbox. First trip, not good. Second trip, not as bad. Simple as that. Next trip will hopeully be better, and shorter. The only really good training I ever had was at Blackwater, and it was great, but didn't get us ready for the things one can't train to, like exploding watermelons, and roadkill, and what 7.62x39 does to clay homes. There is no hiding from real gunfire, and the only solution is to CORRECT the problem, because what you think is cover isn't, it's just temporary concealment.
Train simple things, like shoot from cover if you can find it, and reload on the move. Set up targets behind soft cover, and watch what happens to them when you shoot up the cover. We now set up manequins behind out target backstop, and then shoot the targets, and go and look at the manequin. Horrible, really, how fast concrete block becomes swiss cheese and bricks become piles of crumbs. One magazine of 62gn steel core penetrator ammo, and the wall is totally compromised. 7.62 linked is even worse, as you can imagine. Marksmanship and moving fast are the two biggest winners on the battlefield. Plus helicopter gunships, but that's hard to train to also. :)
Steve.

[JamisJockey]

Does everyone here respect the Marine Corps and how they train?
Well, back in the mid ninties, it was determined that playing first person shooters are valuable off-duty training. They encourage you to react quickly, identify friend or foe, and navigate hostile areas. Clearing rooms, attacking and defending. Top notch training? Nope. Great for helping with hand eye coordination and encouraging instant decision making? Absolutely.

[KriegHund]

Ill say a few words here..no more...considering what happened last time a topic like this sprang up :)

MGS all the way. They are great games.

Metal Gear Solid 4 will be out soon....I think ill play it 48 hours straight before i stop....

I will say this.

If anything, these games do have one advantage (if you wanna call it that) it makes you think, in the back of your mind, there will always be a respawn button. good for a general, bad for a soldier.

[mbs357]

I never said Infiltration was a subsitute for real life training.
But it will familiarize you with ballistics (Time of flight, drop), ricochet, and using the iron sights.
It also has a few more perks over traditional FPSs.

[Jeff White]

JamisJockey said;
Does everyone here respect the Marine Corps and how they train?
Well, back in the mid ninties, it was determined that playing first person shooters are valuable off-duty training.

Do you have a link or a reference to that particular study? Was it published in a professional journal?

I think that if you are going to state that a certain videogame is realistc, that you should relate what part of the game you found to be the same as real life military or police SWAT operations you participated in, and what part of the game didn't actually model your real world experience in a similar situation.

I'd like to take this opportunity to remind everyone that this is the Strategies and Tactics Forum on THR. It's not the PC Gamer forum. You need to steer it back on topic, if you want this thread to remain open.
Jeff

[JamisJockey]

Current
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/marinetrng/a/videogame.htm

Previous happened while I was in. Several FPS games were placed on the "Commandant's list", which also included books we were encouraged to read.

[Dragun]

AAO, America's Army of Operations was or is a free game put out by the US Army. Now why would they do that? Hmmmm?

[NMshooter]

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...:D

[JamisJockey]

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.



Like shoot/don't shoot. Where bad guys might be hiding. Clearing corners and fatal funnels.

[Jeff White]

Dragun said;
AAO, America's Army of Operations was or is a free game put out by the US Army. Now why would they do that? Hmmmm?

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

[imas]

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.

[Creeping Incrementalism]

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).

[Blackhawk 6]

While not entirely relevant, I found Full Spectrum Warrior to be very realistic. You take control of two three-man army squads in a middle eastern urban setting. It's not a first person shooter, so you don't actually shoot things. Instead you order fire arcs and fire types. The entire game centres around making the best use of cover, choosing the appropriate type of action, and denying the enemy the use of cover.

They use a modified version of the game as a training aid for the marines.

I was involved in the development of FSW as a training aid. It was largely considered a failure.

[Lone_Gunman]

---

[shooten]

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]

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

[Jeff White]

Creeping Incrementalism said,

Jeff White, I don’t know why modified games don’t count.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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;
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.

What game is as good as what book? Rainbow Six as good as FM 7-8? Counterstrike as good as Infantry Attacks?

beerslurpy said;

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.

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

[Risasi]

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. :D


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.

[PaladinVC]

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 (http://www.soldat.pl). Standing, kneeling, prone or flying around with rocket shoes, only n00bz use the Barret.

[jamz]

It will be realistic the same day that they include a quicksave button on every soldier's loadout. :)


-James

[RiverwinoIA]

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.

[Creeping Incrementalism]

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.

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. (http://www.virtualbattlefieldsystems.com/press2.html) 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.

No one is saying that games designed or modified to be a training aid aren't capable of teaching something.

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.

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.

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.

[IRONFIST]

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.

[Jeff White]

Creeping Incrementalism said,
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.

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, as I said, all the designers were in the infantry, so I'd say they know what it's like, too.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

[Kurush]

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]

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.

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

[MDG1976]

I don't think it offers much real word training, but Rainbow Six 3 is a hell of a game. Tons of real guns and weapons to choose from.:D

[KriegHund]

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.

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.

[Jeff White]

Creeping Incrementalism said;
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.

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]

I'm not a soldier, I don't have extensive training with , 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 [i]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. :neener: 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]

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 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.

[Ryder]

Sorry, but I don't think video game stress is the same as "oh ???? I'm going to die right now" stress. There is no respawning in real life.


My experience with these real life gotcha moments haven't been stressful. Quite the opposite. My brain gets busy computing the situation and planning a successful survival strategy. I don't feel there is any conscious control in that. If there is I wouldn't interfere since it seems to be a heightened sense of awareness.

Offensive action on the other hand can produce stress for me that may be and often is counter-productive. This is hard to manage but can be delayed with experience. Getting the shakes afterwards is probably unavoidable, at least for me :D

Strategy is either there or it isn't. Playing against a computer teaches you strategy but it's the strategy needed to to beat that game. Games have limitations. They are highly predictable. That must be where most of you are coming from? I agree this is basically useless in real life.

Player vs player can get my adrenaline pumping. It's managable with experience just like IRL. You learn to adapt and not have a singleminded objective unless you want to die. Beerslurpy knows what he's talking about. My game of choice has a penalty for dying that takes the fun out of it. There is no auto save.

Shooten's explanation of the improvement in his tennis abilities fits right in with that article I linked. It's like that.

[Grump]

America's Army is pure mulitplayer as far as I can tell. You hear shots and then you're DEAD.

I thought that was pretty realistic.

I just can't handle keyboard/joystick or any navigation other than hold a plastic simu-gun and point it at the screen. In AA (played only a few times and I probably don't have time to get back into it), about the only movement I do game-time like I would in the real world are leaning out, shimmying sideways, and dodging back and forth while I run forward.

Other than that, I'm a clumsy oaf. ONE thing the game seriously lacks is an ability to glance left or right or otherwise look somewhere other than where your weapon is pointed. Those blind spots are deadly!

The game is hindered somewhat by the differing skill levels between users. But the latest release/bugpatch fixed the bunny-hopping cheater thing. You get tired now and can't leap forever in an effort to avoid getting hit.:neener: