Jump to content

✪ Playing Ghost Recon Classic feels like this....


Recommended Posts

Aleksey Nevzorov on YouTube made some Excellent points from a Russian perspective...

While it is a very well put together short movie, there are somethings wrong with it. 1. I don't think American Navy SEALs would fire at a heavily defended position in day time, when they weren't spotted in the first place, even if it was in revenge of a war crime, And full auto fire is typically never used, even in the Russian army (minus PKM gunners). 2. Yet another movie destroys the image of the Russian soldier more by yet another clip of them shooting civilians for no reason. Truth is, the Russian soldier of today is different from the Soviet soldier of the past. They don't go around executing every single civilian they see for the hell of it (Soviet soldiers rarely did that after WW2). 3. Another typical portrayal of Russian soldiers not being able to hit the side of a house at 300 meters. Believe it or not, we do have training in Russia, soldiers are taught how to maintain their weapon and, yes, actually fire it. Conscripts have less strict discipline and training regimes than the VDV (but those are paratroopers so you'd expect a higher standard) of course, but it doesn't mean they can't pick out a target and neutralize that threat. 4. Lack of a distinct flavour. I point this out because it's a overused idea, of the US and Russia going to war (or in this case a Proxy war), never working together like they did in Kosovo (KFOR) or fighting the pirates off of Somalia, hell the ISS is manned by Russians and Americans. Hell the Russian Empire even helped the Union during the American Civil War by running naval patrols along the American west coast so that the American navy could focus on the East coast. Of course it's realistic in terms of modern politics, Russia and the United States are bitter rivals in the world stage. Other than that, I enjoyed the effects and the sound was good (most of it was from movies or games, but that's not the point). Very good job, but it'd be so much different in real life :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if Ubisoft put together a short just like that, before they started working on Wildlands, to get the dev team in the right place, the right frame of mind, with the right ideas to make a game around the type of values shown there.

Maybe they did.

:)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if Ubisoft put together a short just like that, before they started working on Wildlands, to get the dev team in the right place, the right frame of mind, with the right ideas to make a game around the type of values shown there.

Maybe they did.

:)

Are you on about the ghost recon alpha movie? The free one on YouTube?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if Ubisoft put together a short just like that, before they started working on Wildlands, to get the dev team in the right place, the right frame of mind, with the right ideas to make a game around the type of values shown there.

Maybe they did.

:)

Are you on about the ghost recon alpha movie? The free one on YouTube?

Nope :)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

/ 23 Feb 2012

What Do Real Soldiers Think of Shooting Games?

U.S. soldiers tell us how games like Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 and Battlefield 3 compare with their own experiences.

By Jimmy Thang Developers of games like Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 and Battlefield 3 spend millions of dollars to ensure their games are as realistic as possible. Everything from the noise of guns firing to the war-torn environments are created with meticulous care. Military experts are brought on board to ensure that details look and feel as true to life as possible.

Everyone understands that shooting games are fantasies but how close is the experience to real-life combat situations? We asked three soldiers who have served their country in dangerous war-zones.

They explain that as much as they enjoy playing games, the real-life experiences are vastly different. And while games can be very good at portraying physical environments, they aren't even close to recreating the emotional strain of combat. Also, while games focus on the individual, real soldiers are trained to focus on the team.

Battlefield 3 TV Launch Trailer - "Is It Real"?
01:02
One thing is certain, real life combat is much more tactical than its videogame version "Full blown-out combat is not a common thing," says Marine Lance Corporal Nicko Requesto. "No enemy is going to stand out in the open for you to easily shoot, but most of the time enemies in these games like to stand in front of my weapon. Soldiers learn to cover each other and work as a team covering all line of fire while maintaining a dominant position and then maneuvering to pin the enemy with fire."

Marine Lance Corporal Anthony Andrada, who has already served one term in Iraq and is currently on active reserve, adds, "The games attempt to show how realistic the war situation is, but in the end, it's just a game and not really what war is really like. They are all more of just shoot and move type games."

Even though these games may look and sound realistic to a degree, Andrada says, "the feeling of real danger isn't there." He adds, "During dangerous missions, I constantly feel uneasy and on guard at all times." Furthermore, he says the games do not capture aspects of daily life that include the "fatigue of going out for long hours and daily stresses." Due to the inherent limitations of the medium, Andrada believes that videogames don't implement this sense of uneasiness because "they can't." He explains that games fail also to capture the highs: "Every time we enter friendly lines again it's a world off a person's shoulders."
Join Up Soldier Trailer

02:34Though these games try to be realistic, most gamers don't realize that lugging around an unrealistic amount of bullets, weapons, and gear is hard work. "Most of the time, I have a crazy amount of ammunition in these games; however, in real life, the magazines only carry up to 30 rounds," says Requesto. "A lot of us learned about the theme of 'one shot, one kill' in order to save ammunition. I just waste ammo like crazy in videogames." Also, while games feature a huge variety of guns, Andrada points out that, "most soldiers don't even get to see those guns let alone use them, because the military only allows a few service rifles to be used."Due to these fundamental differences, many tactics in these shooters would "never work in real life," states Andrada. Requesto adds, "Often in these games, I would break cover and just shoot, most of the time I just dash forward and start shooting. The cover and concealment concept is almost nowhere."

U.S. Army Staff Sergeant Brian Gonterman, who served one tour in Afghanistan, said that the enemy AI in games isn't sophisticated enough to behave like humans and that they work based entirely on systematic rules programmed by the developers. "In a game, you know what to expect; whereas in real life, the situation changes every day and you learn by going out of the wire all the time."

One depiction that these militaristic games often showcase is the use of small squadrons of soldiers. Often these games will feature four-man teams and even lone-wolf missions. How accurate are these portrayals?

According to Requesto, these four-man teams are common and are called 'fire teams'. The concept of lone-wolfing it, however, is not standard procedure. "In the military, we have a thing called the buddy system....there is always team accountability and awareness. No one would ever go out to conduct any part of an operation by themselves. You take care of your buddy and your buddy is supposed to take care of you."

Gonterman adds. "I was in a recon unit and in a sniper section. We never did one-man missions, but we would go out in two, four, or eight-man teams, then split off into smaller groups depending on how many people we had and the mission task, but I never did a one-man team for an entire mission, it was too hostile."

While militaristic games may often miss their mark of reality, could a gamer benefit from using any real-world tactics out on the virtual battlefield?

Andrada doesn't think so. "My real-life combat training doesn't really help. It's more of how you can exploit the game's mechanics to be successful than knowing any real tactics about war." Requesto, however, offers some small advice. "One thing I used was something called cutting the pie," - a tactic that maximizes your distance on turning corners to minimize your exposures to threats - "I only do that if there are a lot of enemies. Another tactic that I use is cover and concealment. This is where the space you shoot from is small and your vantage point is large, making you less visible and hard to reach." However, he adds that "the stuff I do in the games is pretty common knowledge to a lot of gamers."

Do soldiers believe that games companies portray them fairly? Requesto says, "I think the developers are trying their best to showcase the military in a good light. A lot of these messages are shown through character dialogue, like the importance of brotherhood, courage and fighting the good fight." But Gonterman believes the developers are in it for "easy money."

Making light of a dreary and serious situation such as war is one thing, but to sell the experience as 'fun' is a different and controversial matter altogether. Are our soldiers bothered by this portrayal of their serious line of work?

"It doesn't bother me because it is only a game," says Andrada. Requesto has a slightly different take: "Only when I meet idiots who don't know how to tell fantasy from fiction. Everyone should understand these are just games, and everyone I play these games with are cool." However, he adds, "once in a while I might meet someone who can only think about blowing someone up."

01_1327966177.jpg

Unlike their human counterparts, protagonists in military shooters can generally soak up bullets by the truckload and are portrayed as unstoppable bad asses. Is this representation flattering or over-inflated hyperbole?

"It's both," according to Requesto. "I learned to take the good and the bad. The praise is cool." But commenting on the hyperbole of the portrayal, he added, "It's just that 'one-man army' stuff would never work in real life. Everyone in the military, everyone, is trained to work as a unit." Andrada adds that "the whole super soldier portrayal is really cool," but "in reality, it's a teamwork effort." He believes the games should put more emphasis on team work than the storylines that are being portrayed. "In all games, you are the man. I would like it if it was more team-focused." Gonterman doesn't see the representation simply as flattery or praise, but a "stereotype of what actual soldiers go through." With games looking more realistic with each and every iteration, he feels that this has caused some to falsely believe that war actually looks like as it does in videogames.

Regardless of inaccurate portrayals, is it possible to actually glean any useful tactics from military shooters that might help a would-be soldier on the real battlefield?

None of the soldiers believe this to be possible. "There is no way these games will help anyone prepare for war," stated Andrada.

Requesto added, "I don't think anyone can prepare for something like war. War is a horrible and dirty thing. People die."

Regardless, due to the stereotypes established by these best-selling games, many gamers across the world believe they have a decent understanding of what it's really like out there. All three soldiers were bothered by this fact.

"It does bother me to think that gamers think that they might have a view of what war is really like," says Andrada. "But it is hard for anyone to really showcase how war is through a videogame." Gonterman asserts that it annoys him and that he "nearly lost it" when a non-military gamer said they were having war "flashbacks" for skirmishes that took place on virtual battlegrounds. Requesto suggests getting a strong reality check before making any assumptions about how it is to be a soldier. "To anyone who hasn't gone through any kind of basic training, don't say you can do it until you have done it." He says these games don't take into account all the "hard work, suffering, and sweat" that it takes to become a soldier. Furthermore, he believes a bad habit that the games teach is the mindset of "It's all about protecting yourself," but in real combat, the mentality should be, "It's all about protecting each other."

Going back to whether or not these games can prepare one for war, the response was more overwhelming that they do more harm in teaching bad habits than they do good. Requesto says that gamers need to realize two things from playing videogames. "Number one, you don't act by yourself, the key to winning and staying alive is communication. Number two, you're not alone. You are fighting to protect the man on your right and the man on your left." Requesto adds that the last thing gamers have on their minds as they play through the campaign modes of these shooters is for the safety of their AI companions. Gonterman says that these would-be gamer soldiers should simply "forget everything" from their videogame experiences and realize that virtual combat simply "does not compare" to the real thing.

call-of-duty-modern-warfare-3-2011110703

With the popularity of the genre, it's interesting to note its effects (or lack thereof) on armed-forces enlistment.

Gonterman believes the influences of these games are minimal at best, stating, "You either want to be in the military or you don't." Andrada has a different opinion, "I do think that these games do have a way of making people enlist. The games do glorify us and players want to be a part of the real thing." Requesto believes that "with all these new games showing up," this indirect marketing does play somewhat of a role. "I go to school and all I can hear about is how awesome the campaign is."

While it's difficult to accurately determine how much sway these games have on military enlistment, the bigger and more complicated question is: should fervent fans of these games enlist?

"I don't think that gamers should enlist because of a game," says Andrada. "They have to really think about what they are doing because life in a game is much different from the real thing." Requesto's adds, "Only if they want to and only if you're ready to make a commitment and a sacrifice. I'm a fan of these games like everyone else, but I take my work seriously." Gonterman believes that the decision to enlist should be contingent on more than whether or not they are a fan of these games. "Enlisting should be up to the person's mentality and if they think they can handle basic training."

call-of-duty-modern-warfare-3-2011110703

Though game companies attempt to accurately depict life at war to a degree, the games neglect many aspects of a soldier's life.

According to Gonterman, these games leave out "post-traumatic stress disorder, innocent casualties, the feeling of your friends being injured or killed, the feeling of a real threat of a person trying to kill you." On top of that, Requesto says that war is a broad term and "there are many steps and rules of engagements." Furthermore, while people do get shot and die during war, there's a lot of boring stuff these games don't take into account. "There's a tremendous amount of cleaning up, as in janitorial work. There's a constant amount of paperwork, and often times we're being told to hurry up for something that may not happen. That is pretty much daily life," says Requesto.

Andrada concludes, "Most of these games portray us as bad assess, and yes, we are, but we do live ordinary lives as well. Not all of us are as gung ho as it would seem and I think if game developers showed us as human beings and not just men of war, it would really give non-military game players a more accurate idea of what it's like to be a member of the armed forces." globhead_dpad_red.png

Edited by Burner
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that it is impossible for military shooters or simulators to portray combat realistically.

The medium is not capable of it.

Even games that do their best to portray combat as 'realistically as possible' fall light years short of reality.

That is not to say military shooters can't be a good gaming experience or that some developers do a better job of making a good 'game' than others.

Edited by wombat50
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
/ 23 Feb 2012

What Do Real Soldiers Think of Shooting Games?

U.S. soldiers tell us how games like Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 and Battlefield 3 compare with their own experiences.

 

By Jimmy Thang Developers of games like Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 and Battlefield 3 spend millions of dollars to ensure their games are as realistic as possible. Everything from the noise of guns firing to the war-torn environments are created with meticulous care. Military experts are brought on board to ensure that details look and feel as true to life as possible.

Everyone understands that shooting games are fantasies but how close is the experience to real-life combat situations? We asked three soldiers who have served their country in dangerous war-zones.

They explain that as much as they enjoy playing games, the real-life experiences are vastly different. And while games can be very good at portraying physical environments, they aren't even close to recreating the emotional strain of combat. Also, while games focus on the individual, real soldiers are trained to focus on the team.

Battlefield 3 TV Launch Trailer - "Is It Real"?
01:02
 
One thing is certain, real life combat is much more tactical than its videogame version "Full blown-out combat is not a common thing," says Marine Lance Corporal Nicko Requesto. "No enemy is going to stand out in the open for you to easily shoot, but most of the time enemies in these games like to stand in front of my weapon. Soldiers learn to cover each other and work as a team covering all line of fire while maintaining a dominant position and then maneuvering to pin the enemy with fire."

Marine Lance Corporal Anthony Andrada, who has already served one term in Iraq and is currently on active reserve, adds, "The games attempt to show how realistic the war situation is, but in the end, it's just a game and not really what war is really like. They are all more of just shoot and move type games."

Even though these games may look and sound realistic to a degree, Andrada says, "the feeling of real danger isn't there." He adds, "During dangerous missions, I constantly feel uneasy and on guard at all times." Furthermore, he says the games do not capture aspects of daily life that include the "fatigue of going out for long hours and daily stresses." Due to the inherent limitations of the medium, Andrada believes that videogames don't implement this sense of uneasiness because "they can't." He explains that games fail also to capture the highs: "Every time we enter friendly lines again it's a world off a person's shoulders."
Join Up Soldier Trailer

02:34Though these games try to be realistic, most gamers don't realize that lugging around an unrealistic amount of bullets, weapons, and gear is hard work. "Most of the time, I have a crazy amount of ammunition in these games; however, in real life, the magazines only carry up to 30 rounds," says Requesto. "A lot of us learned about the theme of 'one shot, one kill' in order to save ammunition. I just waste ammo like crazy in videogames." Also, while games feature a huge variety of guns, Andrada points out that, "most soldiers don't even get to see those guns let alone use them, because the military only allows a few service rifles to be used."Due to these fundamental differences, many tactics in these shooters would "never work in real life," states Andrada. Requesto adds, "Often in these games, I would break cover and just shoot, most of the time I just dash forward and start shooting. The cover and concealment concept is almost nowhere."

U.S. Army Staff Sergeant Brian Gonterman, who served one tour in Afghanistan, said that the enemy AI in games isn't sophisticated enough to behave like humans and that they work based entirely on systematic rules programmed by the developers. "In a game, you know what to expect; whereas in real life, the situation changes every day and you learn by going out of the wire all the time."

One depiction that these militaristic games often showcase is the use of small squadrons of soldiers. Often these games will feature four-man teams and even lone-wolf missions. How accurate are these portrayals?

According to Requesto, these four-man teams are common and are called 'fire teams'. The concept of lone-wolfing it, however, is not standard procedure. "In the military, we have a thing called the buddy system....there is always team accountability and awareness. No one would ever go out to conduct any part of an operation by themselves. You take care of your buddy and your buddy is supposed to take care of you."

Gonterman adds. "I was in a recon unit and in a sniper section. We never did one-man missions, but we would go out in two, four, or eight-man teams, then split off into smaller groups depending on how many people we had and the mission task, but I never did a one-man team for an entire mission, it was too hostile."

 

While militaristic games may often miss their mark of reality, could a gamer benefit from using any real-world tactics out on the virtual battlefield?

Andrada doesn't think so. "My real-life combat training doesn't really help. It's more of how you can exploit the game's mechanics to be successful than knowing any real tactics about war." Requesto, however, offers some small advice. "One thing I used was something called cutting the pie," - a tactic that maximizes your distance on turning corners to minimize your exposures to threats - "I only do that if there are a lot of enemies. Another tactic that I use is cover and concealment. This is where the space you shoot from is small and your vantage point is large, making you less visible and hard to reach." However, he adds that "the stuff I do in the games is pretty common knowledge to a lot of gamers."

Do soldiers believe that games companies portray them fairly? Requesto says, "I think the developers are trying their best to showcase the military in a good light. A lot of these messages are shown through character dialogue, like the importance of brotherhood, courage and fighting the good fight." But Gonterman believes the developers are in it for "easy money."

Making light of a dreary and serious situation such as war is one thing, but to sell the experience as 'fun' is a different and controversial matter altogether. Are our soldiers bothered by this portrayal of their serious line of work?

"It doesn't bother me because it is only a game," says Andrada. Requesto has a slightly different take: "Only when I meet idiots who don't know how to tell fantasy from fiction. Everyone should understand these are just games, and everyone I play these games with are cool." However, he adds, "once in a while I might meet someone who can only think about blowing someone up."

01_1327966177.jpg

Unlike their human counterparts, protagonists in military shooters can generally soak up bullets by the truckload and are portrayed as unstoppable bad asses. Is this representation flattering or over-inflated hyperbole?

"It's both," according to Requesto. "I learned to take the good and the bad. The praise is cool." But commenting on the hyperbole of the portrayal, he added, "It's just that 'one-man army' stuff would never work in real life. Everyone in the military, everyone, is trained to work as a unit." Andrada adds that "the whole super soldier portrayal is really cool," but "in reality, it's a teamwork effort." He believes the games should put more emphasis on team work than the storylines that are being portrayed. "In all games, you are the man. I would like it if it was more team-focused." Gonterman doesn't see the representation simply as flattery or praise, but a "stereotype of what actual soldiers go through." With games looking more realistic with each and every iteration, he feels that this has caused some to falsely believe that war actually looks like as it does in videogames.

Regardless of inaccurate portrayals, is it possible to actually glean any useful tactics from military shooters that might help a would-be soldier on the real battlefield?

None of the soldiers believe this to be possible. "There is no way these games will help anyone prepare for war," stated Andrada.

Requesto added, "I don't think anyone can prepare for something like war. War is a horrible and dirty thing. People die."

Regardless, due to the stereotypes established by these best-selling games, many gamers across the world believe they have a decent understanding of what it's really like out there. All three soldiers were bothered by this fact.

"It does bother me to think that gamers think that they might have a view of what war is really like," says Andrada. "But it is hard for anyone to really showcase how war is through a videogame." Gonterman asserts that it annoys him and that he "nearly lost it" when a non-military gamer said they were having war "flashbacks" for skirmishes that took place on virtual battlegrounds. Requesto suggests getting a strong reality check before making any assumptions about how it is to be a soldier. "To anyone who hasn't gone through any kind of basic training, don't say you can do it until you have done it." He says these games don't take into account all the "hard work, suffering, and sweat" that it takes to become a soldier. Furthermore, he believes a bad habit that the games teach is the mindset of "It's all about protecting yourself," but in real combat, the mentality should be, "It's all about protecting each other."

Going back to whether or not these games can prepare one for war, the response was more overwhelming that they do more harm in teaching bad habits than they do good. Requesto says that gamers need to realize two things from playing videogames. "Number one, you don't act by yourself, the key to winning and staying alive is communication. Number two, you're not alone. You are fighting to protect the man on your right and the man on your left." Requesto adds that the last thing gamers have on their minds as they play through the campaign modes of these shooters is for the safety of their AI companions. Gonterman says that these would-be gamer soldiers should simply "forget everything" from their videogame experiences and realize that virtual combat simply "does not compare" to the real thing.

call-of-duty-modern-warfare-3-2011110703

With the popularity of the genre, it's interesting to note its effects (or lack thereof) on armed-forces enlistment.

Gonterman believes the influences of these games are minimal at best, stating, "You either want to be in the military or you don't." Andrada has a different opinion, "I do think that these games do have a way of making people enlist. The games do glorify us and players want to be a part of the real thing." Requesto believes that "with all these new games showing up," this indirect marketing does play somewhat of a role. "I go to school and all I can hear about is how awesome the campaign is."

While it's difficult to accurately determine how much sway these games have on military enlistment, the bigger and more complicated question is: should fervent fans of these games enlist?

"I don't think that gamers should enlist because of a game," says Andrada. "They have to really think about what they are doing because life in a game is much different from the real thing." Requesto's adds, "Only if they want to and only if you're ready to make a commitment and a sacrifice. I'm a fan of these games like everyone else, but I take my work seriously." Gonterman believes that the decision to enlist should be contingent on more than whether or not they are a fan of these games. "Enlisting should be up to the person's mentality and if they think they can handle basic training."

call-of-duty-modern-warfare-3-2011110703

Though game companies attempt to accurately depict life at war to a degree, the games neglect many aspects of a soldier's life.

According to Gonterman, these games leave out "post-traumatic stress disorder, innocent casualties, the feeling of your friends being injured or killed, the feeling of a real threat of a person trying to kill you." On top of that, Requesto says that war is a broad term and "there are many steps and rules of engagements." Furthermore, while people do get shot and die during war, there's a lot of boring stuff these games don't take into account. "There's a tremendous amount of cleaning up, as in janitorial work. There's a constant amount of paperwork, and often times we're being told to hurry up for something that may not happen. That is pretty much daily life," says Requesto.

Andrada concludes, "Most of these games portray us as bad assess, and yes, we are, but we do live ordinary lives as well. Not all of us are as gung ho as it would seem and I think if game developers showed us as human beings and not just men of war, it would really give non-military game players a more accurate idea of what it's like to be a member of the armed forces." globhead_dpad_red.png

I think ArmA series are quite successful in that aspect, what do you think?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...