Gamers make good Soldiers

[repiV]

PC games are about as relevant to a real battle experience as playing Fifa 2007 is to being a professional footballer.
The ability to fire a weapon is only a very small part of overall soldiering competence - the Royal Marines training program might help shed some light on the immense range of skills and the incredible mental fortitude demanded of a professional soldier. And firing a weapon in real life bears very little resemblance to playing Operation Flashpoint, also.

That being said, games certainly develop excellent hand-eye coordination.

 

[Mr Stabby]

"There was a time when commentators and some more experienced members of the Army expressed concern as to whether the 'PlayStation generation' were up to dealing with the gritty bloody conflict that is routine business in southern Afghanistan and Iraq," General Sir Richard Dannatt told Cardiff Business Club in comments reported by BusinessInWales.

Isn't he actually saying, that our generation just aren't the lazy idiots, the Daily Mail thought we were, and that our generation are just as capable as others.

 

[Javert]

To me, wading through mud under a net carrying a rifle and pressing 'z' to toggle prone is the same thing.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

i think they're not telling the full story here ..I think they failed to mention that terrorists are not used to seeing soldiers bunnyhopping or waiting in line to fly a f-18 or attempting to power jump with a rocket launcher ..so they're completely caught by surprise and just stand there, mouths agape waiting to be shot

Now, thats America's Army! (pun)

I guess what they're saying is -- between an emotionally repressed redneck neanderthal serving or an intellectual bone thin video gaming ace, which would you choose as a "future warrior?"

 

[Kaptain H]

I found that video games were so far removed from what I did in the military and what it was actually like, that there was no sense in comparing them.

 

[Geogaddi]

As someone who is both experienced with gaming and using firearms, I can tell you that video game skills amounts to nothing when using a gun. Maybe my hand-eye coordination is a little better, but I had no obvious advantage over the 40 year old woman next to me when I was learning to hit a target.

 

[repiV]

As someone who is both experienced with gaming and using firearms, I can tell you that video game skills amounts to nothing when using a gun. Maybe my hand-eye coordination is a little better, but I had no obvious advantage over the 40 year old woman next to me when I was learning to hit a target.

Plus, using a firearm is only one small aspect of being a soldier.

 

[Saturos]

funny how they dont quantify exactly what it is that they're better at ..is it shooting? doing what they're told? successfully playing the part of cannon fodder?

I agree. I think it's all propaganda really. I doubt that they actually meant that gamers would make better soldiers. They're idiots if they truely believe that. A keyboard and mouse is not the same as firing a real gun. The physics in games, though becoming more realistic, still does not match real life physics. Plus, many gamers in real life are about as disciplined as a screen door. However, at least a screen door has a purpose. Propaganda. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[theotherguy]

Having just attended a conference on military simulations, I can say that there is a huge difference between real military simulators and games.

They put us in this virtual simulator with a real M16 that shot blanks and a VR helmet. At first it was extremely disorienting. I wasn't able to aim my weapon at all. It was extremely heavy and lining up the iron sights was alot more difficult than I imagined. In the target range I only got 12/69 shots on target. The sound and weight of the gun made it almost frightening to fire it, but again, I got over it pretty quickly.

over time I got better. Soon I was running the tactical simulator and completely outstripping the middle-aged men around me who had never played video games before. This is mostly because I realized that the enemies were AI, and I learned their firing patterns and exploited them. I also knew to fire in controlled bursts and to lead targets, while the men around me did not. Later when we fought a "deathmatch" style game I was left the last man standing.

However, as soon as US soldiers got on next to me, I was completely pwned. Most of my tactics were "run up to cover, crouch, shoot the enemies, and advance", as is common in most FPS games, while the US soldiers were much more cautious, watching flanks, setting up perimeters and scouting. Eventually my team and I were totally outflanked by the US soldiers and I got gunned down easily.

 

[mastapenguin]

I'm fairly certain that the general in question was not referring to shooting prowess. I think we can all agree that learning to fire a gun is really only accomplished with a real gun.

I rather believe he was referring to the other parts of soldiering. You know, teamwork, quickly identifying threats, the art of not getting shot, etc.

I rather believe theotherguy's post really demonstrates what this guy is talking about. Sure, there were teething issues with the M16, but after he got used to the gun, he was far better than the other people in the session. Certainly, the professional soldiers beat him, but that's not the point. The point is, as a recruit, theotherguy would be a far better pick than someone who hadn't played video games.

 

[Vegeta897]

However, as soon as US soldiers got on next to me, I was completely pwned. Most of my tactics were "run up to cover, crouch, shoot the enemies, and advance", as is common in most FPS games, while the US soldiers were much more cautious, watching flanks, setting up perimeters and scouting. Eventually my team and I were totally outflanked by the US soldiers and I got gunned down easily.

The fact that you got owned by trained soldiers means absolutely nothing in this argument. You said yourself that you were far better than the non-gamers you were up against.

The argument isn't "does it make you a good soldier". The argument is "does it make you a better soldier, as opposed to a non gamer"

Everyone seems to be completely misunderstanding this and continuously bringing up examples of how a gamer would be a total noob marksman... No shit sherlock! But the fact is you have to compare it to a NON GAMER.

I've learned everything I know about guns and combat from video games. I've played airsoft out in the woods quite a few times and I can tell you 100 percent positively that I was a much better soldier out on that field because of my experience in video games. Cover, concealment, flanking, etc. Gamers are far more familiar with combat than a non-gamer. NOTICE I DIDN'T SAY THEY WERE FAMILIAR WITH COMBAT. I said BETTER than a NONGAMER.

15357's post should have ended the thread. It's proven.
Big facepalm.

 

[Saturos]

Most arguments of these posts are true, but I wonder how many gamers enlist to be a front-line soldier or marine in the first place? Many gamers play games because there's no risk of life and limb involved. It's safe, and many of the hardcore gamers who do enlist in the armed forces usually are geeks who are skilled and more interested in the technical fields/branches of the armed forces like the Air Force or the NAVY, just to and/or to stay off the front-lines. Or simply because they aren't interested in getting dirty, sweaty, shot at etc. From what I recall from a previous thread in the Lounge forum though, most gamers here are dirty and sweaty anyways. http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=135839

 

[theotherguy]

I'm fairly certain that the general in question was not referring to shooting prowess. I think we can all agree that learning to fire a gun is really only accomplished with a real gun.

I rather believe he was referring to the other parts of soldiering. You know, teamwork, quickly identifying threats, the art of not getting shot, etc.

I rather believe theotherguy's post really demonstrates what this guy is talking about. Sure, there were teething issues with the M16, but after he got used to the gun, he was far better than the other people in the session. Certainly, the professional soldiers beat him, but that's not the point. The point is, as a recruit, theotherguy would be a far better pick than someone who hadn't played video games.

Unfortunately video games have also rendered me slow, fat, and weak. The only reason my skill was visible is because we weren't actually running around on a battlefield.

 

[Raziaar]

Most arguments of these posts are true, but I wonder how many gamers enlist to be a front-line soldier or marine in the first place?

Many unfortunately. That's why the military has such a huge presence at E3 and other game expos and stuff. They have seen that their game and other military games are great for getting the grunt recruits that they were lacking in before.

 

[Saturos]

Many unfortunately. That's why the military has such a huge presence at E3 and other game expos and stuff. They have seen that their game and other military games are great for getting the grunt recruits that they were lacking in before.

Being from a family with a military history, I have nothing against the military or any of it's branches. In fact, I'm due for enlistment myself for the NAVY next Spring or Summer. I just wish those guys (the recruiters) would stop candy-coating shit to all those gullible fools that think just because they can "pwn" someone at counter-strike or America's Army, that they would be good candidates for a ground-pounding killing machine. Let's be realistic, one would have to be a complete hard-ass to do the kind of dirty work the U.S. soldiers or marines do, and I'd imagine that many gamers are not nowhere near the hard-ass mindset which would make them mentally incapable to face such life-threatening and dangerous work, reguardless of what the statistics say that video games make better soldiers. War can make even the hardest of warriors crack,just imagine what it could do to someone who does not have the proper mental mindframe. The mental mindset and determination is more important imo and even that doesn't safeguard anyone from war fatigue. It just shouldn't be how many kills they can rack up in a MMO. but rather if it's what they really want. If they (the gamers) think they can cut the mustard just because they can "game" or have "good eye-hand coordination" or whatever, they are sorely mistaken and have no idea just how harsh real-life combat really is. If they have to stop and think about the risks or the possiblity of mental trauma, they probably shouldn't join.

 

[Vegeta897]

Look, an entire post that has nothing to do with the argument.

If we can agree that gamers have no advantage in the "shock" of what it's like to be in combat compared to nongamers, than it's irrelevant to the argument.

What we're talking about is what areas gamers DO have an advantage over non-gamers when it comes to combat. I definitely think they do have some.

 

[Kadayi]

Many unfortunately. That's why the military has such a huge presence at E3 and other game expos and stuff. They have seen that their game and other military games are great for getting the grunt recruits that they were lacking in before.

I'm with the youtube CS guy on RL life fighting, the graphics might look amazing, but if you die there's no reload option...

 

[Rixil]

Gamers are only good soldiers if they can walk miles with 50 pounds on them, have the strength and morality to kill a person in the midst of war, and not be afraid.

A lot of gamers, especially hardcore ones press buttons on a mouse and keyboard to shoot, aim, and even fly jets. Have they tried doing it in real life with your arms, and knowing how long it takes to start a F-16 up is 5-10 minutes. A lot of power switches have to activate in order, where as in games you just press the use key to hop in and the jet starts.

If gamers do Fighter jet simulators with a lot of accuracy, then the only thing the gamer needs is the strength and ability to take up to 12 G's.

 

[mastapenguin]

You're missing the point. We are NOT, I repeat NOT intimating that a gamer can pick up a gun, put on the gear, and go to war at the same level of a professional soldier.

We are saying that gamers have advantages in understanding combat over a non-gamer. The muscle and the hardness are what boot camp is for.

Now, if you really want to argue the point, explain how a gamer who plays FPS a bunch is worse off than a non-gamer, bearing in mind that both people would be equally affected by the initial shock and chaos.

 

[VirusType2]

I'm not a gun owner but even I know you cant trasfer video game skills to shooting a real gun

you learn to lead your target, compensate for kick, etc. To take cover, reload, then come out of cover firing, etc.

Also after playing through CoD4 I understand what all of that jargon means.

on me = assemble near me, go on my lead

covering fire = spray some bullets to make the enemy take cover, to protect one or more of your guys that are vulnerable and in the open

enemies in the open = duh

weapons free = fire at will

dozens of other stuff

fire in the hole and things like that