CptStern
suckmonkey
- Joined
- May 5, 2004
- Messages
- 10,303
- Reaction score
- 62
Razor said:CptStern, you see the dying in each round as an inaccuracy that means the recruits don't truely understand the consequences of combat, i see it more of a learning thing "i did this in a previous round and i died, perhaps i should try to do it differently this time", this means you get to try out new tactics with no penalty of death if it doesn't work. This definately helps in training, but it can also help in recruiting. You see the game as a fast paced action game, i see it more of an ultra realistc game that introduces possible new recruits to weapons, to the training, to the tactics and strategy behind beating the bad guys, and then there are others who see it as a fun way to while away the evening at home.
that's just it ..there are no "bad guys" in war ...just soldiers following orders ...if that were true ..bush cheney rumsfeld would be the "bad guys" this round
Razor said:The point is, you're arguing that America's Army has a profound effect on players, an effect that would singlehandedly get a person to join the US army, is that correct?
no, I'm saying it doesnt have enough of a profound effect
Razor said:Fine, playing America's Army might get teenagers to look at the possibilities and weigh up the pros and cons of joining the army after they finish school, but i don't think it is the only stepping stone a long the way, like i said, joining the armed forces is a lot more then just playing the game and signing up the next day, or for the British forces anyway. If the American Army is based just on the principal of someone showing up, signing and contract and they're immediately shipped off to boot camp after a quick medical, then that is a serious problem with the recruiting phase of the US armed forces, rather then the game.
well using f9/11 as an example, the main stragedy to recruitment is deception
Razor said:If most American soldiers in Iraq think Saddam was primarily responsible for 9/11, that is the fault of the soldiers not reading up on it. They get newspapers over there, they get news over there, they should be able to piece 2 and 2 together to come out with the correct answer, so i don't know why they still think along the lines that Saddam was responsible.
well if they actually did the research they wouldnt have supported the war in the first place ...the evidence is just too overwhelming to dismiss ...unless you make a concerted effort. But shouldnt the military fill in the gaps? shouldnt the military make sure their soldiers receive the right information, or is that counter-productive? "do as you're told" and all that