Future Force Company Commander!!!

[CptStern]

stupid name for a new in development game for the US army along the lines of America's army: it's a recruitment tool ..except this one doesnt paint the entire picture of what combat is like

A new video game commissioned by the U.S. Army as a recruiting tool portrays the nation's military in 2015 as an invulnerable high-tech machine.

The new PC title, Future Force Company Commander, or F2C2, is a nifty God-game that puts players in the driver's seat of 18 systems at the heart of the military's new net-centric warfare approach. The Army added the game to its recruiting tool kit last month as a high-tech follow-up to its successful America's Army shooter.

It's an impressive game, simulating weaponry the military is actually using or building, gamers say. But the gameplay is designed so it's hard to lose: The equipment holds up awfully well and the enemy doesn't learn from experience.

"They didn't ask for hole punchers," says Mark Long, co-CEO of Zombie, where the game was built under contract. "High tech has all kinds of low-tech vulnerabilities and they didn't want the vulnerabilities programmed in."

lol so in other words it's not effective against unconventional means of attack like a suicide bombing or roadside bomb ..way to give players an accurate vision of what it means to fight in war

Gamers on Battlefront.com give the title good reviews, but complain about the game being paid for with their taxes and offering an overly optimistic view of America's tactical superiority over fictitious enemies.


Susan Nash, an e-learning expert and associate dean at Excelsior College in Albany, New York, has played F2C2 and the Army's first recruiting game. She gives both high marks for fun and for the learning experience. But she agrees with Long that the new game presents an artificially rosy view of warfare.


More than anything else, Nash is bothered by the fantasy the potential recruits may have that they'll end up the commander riding a joystick rather than understanding what military life means.

"You don't see the day-to-day boredom, you don't see broken legs and equipment failure," she says. "You don't see that the military is mostly grunts and only the grunts on the ground die."

opinions? Is it ethically sound for recruiting tools such as America's army to only portray one side of military life?

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,72156-0.html?tw=rss.technology

 

[jondy]

I don't agree with the idea of 'recruitment tool' games, but I'm not sure I'm too bothered.. all I see is another game out, for free, and if it's any good then all the better

EDIT: Having said that, paying for it with tax money seems a bit cheeky.

 

[DeusExMachina]

I'm still waiting for a game with terrorist main characters.

 

[Sainku]

Army needs better propaganda distribution servers, download won't start.

 

[DEATH eVADER]

War shouldn't be a game

 

[jondy]

War shouldn't be a game

Anyone for DoD:S?

 

[Ome_Vince]

hehe, yeah doesn't surprise me. A good bunch of games are being used/created as political tools or recruitment tools (for a while now).
I've seen a whole bunch of "interesting" Jihad games coming from the Mideast. The only difference is the mideast games generally suck, and also don't get the exposure outside of the MidEast (although "The Stone Throwers" was pretty funny lol).

 

[<RJMC>]

sure if a soldiers fire a rifle a nuclear explotion will appear
every arab,northkorean,russian,chinese, etc will worth points dont matter if is a kid,woman,inocent,baby,etc
and the enemyes will be a combination of nazi-satanic-arabs-antibush

 

[15357]

Is it ethically sound for recruiting tools such as America's army to only portray one side of military life?

And yet you advocate freedom of speech..... hmm..

 

[CptStern]

lol! that's not at all relative ...in fact one could argue that it only shows one side and suppresses the ugly side of war thereby censoring the material ...but this is a silly argument, the issue has no bearing on freedom of speech

 

[15357]

But you are against publishing of this material. Does not 'freedom' of speech apply to everyone? It doesn't 'supress' anything, for it's not the one doing the 'supressing'.

This material has the right to be published along with any other material.

 

[CptStern]

who's against publishing what now? you're putting words in my mouth ..I really dont care if they "publish" the material, just pointing out that it's one sided ...but my pov isnt even unique ..the author of the article shares the same pov as do other similiar articles ...yet according to you, out of all of those people who've written similiar articles I'm the only one who's trying to censor the game

 

[jondy]

This material has the right to be published along with any other material.

An argument as old as the hills, with an even older answer - just cause you can, doesn't mean you should.

 

[brink's]

I'm still waiting for a game with terrorist main characters.

Yea, Jack Thompson would love that.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

opinions? Is it ethically sound for recruiting tools such as America's army to only portray one side of military life?

Ethics? You sold me at sound -- if the United States military is hoping to make its recruitment goals through video games that stubbournly lie about warfare then it cannot hope to maintain its 'Super Power' status for very long.

Optimism is a good thing to have in a video game -- and I'm not saying that the technology used won't be effective against unconventional or conventional methods of warfare, but Gamers need to know 'threat', and 'instinct' if they intend to survive or adapt in the ever changing battlefield environments of Symmetrical and Assymetrical warfare.

Originally Posted by DEATH eVADER
War shouldn't be a game

Anyone for DoD:S?

Sigged.

 

[15357]

An argument as old as the hills, with an even older answer - just cause you can, doesn't mean you should.

Exactly why I advocate censorship.