Semi-serious question about combat video games

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
lets say for the sake of argument you opponents have no formal training at all. Video games or otherwise. Just issued a riffle.

But now you've made up a completely ridiculous argument. How about for the sake of argument your opponents are quadriplegics?

Just playing video games will not increase your abilities in real combat. Video games used in the army are used in conjunction with other training techniques (live fire exercises, etc.)

At best, playing video games can increase hand-eye coordination (which is important) and can give you an idea of basic tactics. You can't really expect to get any more than that, though.

And firing a gun is NOT as easy as "point and shoot." Soldiers used to treat guns that way when the rifle was first invented. Pointing and shooting is never as effective as taking aim, knowing how to deal with recoil, finding cover, etc. If shit ever hits the fan, "point and shoot" shouldn't be what's going through your mind when you hold a gun.

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: AstroManLuca
My cousin is an Army officer. A couple years ago he visited my family and we played some Halo (the first one). His first response to the "Truth and Reconciliation" level was that there weren't nearly enough allied soldiers for it to be anything like real life. He told me the Army doesn't get into a fight unless they outnumber the enemy 3 to 1. Obviously if you're attacked, you do what you can, but that level was supposed to be an attack.

There might be a few really general things that transfer over from games to actual combat. Counter-Strike has always emphasized the need for you to steady your shot by avoiding firing while moving or in full automatic. It doesn't teach you how to actually do these things, but a CS player will at least know that it's not a good idea to just blast away like Rambo because you're probably not going to hit much of anything. In an even more general sense, gamers are used to adapting to new situations and learning new things because, unlike people who get their entertainment mainly from watching TV and movies, they have to spend time figuring things out. This might make them a little quicker to learn certain techniques.

But I don't think being a gamer helps much. I doubt actual combat is similar in any way to what you see in your typical shooter. If actual battles in Iraq were fought just like they are depicted in the SP campaign for COD4, you wouldn't hear about a handful of US deaths per week - there would be dozens of them. And the Iraqis would probably be terrified of our insane kamikaze soldiers.

Sun Tzu - The victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory.

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: m0mentary

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: CKDragon

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
So take the average american gamer and pit them against the average Chinamen who has lived on a rice farm their entire life. Who will fare better then?

The Chinaman is not the issue here.

Yeah sure it is. I am comparing a civilian with gaming experience to a civilian with no experience. Which would fare better.

are we in the US or China? I don't think EVERY vietnamese person was a soldier in the Vietnam war.

I think he wants Anandtech to invade the rural provinces of China

 

[DarkThinker]

Originally posted by: pontifex
i would also say that in FPS games, you know you'll just respawn so you'll take more risks.

Nooo! But what about your KD ratio? Personally I'd rather die than lower my KD ratio...

 

[Pia]

Originally posted by: pontifex
lmao...seriously?....no....just, no...

QFT.

I'm a reservist infantry officer. If I'm given thirty untrained civilians with rifles and minimal gear and told I have half a year / a week / fifteen minutes to prepare to fight and win, I don't give a shit whether any one of them has played some video games. It doesn't matter. If I get to pick them out of a larger bunch, the very first things I'd ask each person are: 1) How fit are you? 2) How well can you use guns? These things are crucial and training does not drastically improve them overnight. Fitness correlates well with some other crucial characteristics, and I'll pick it over gunhandling skill unless the fighting starts immediately.

What most people apparently do not realize on this thread is how little infantry improvises. Everyone is a little cog in a machine that is released upon the enemy when appropriate. IRL whole panzer battalions have fought whole, wildly successful battles with one order from the commander: "Advance in direction of road X." The rest was pre-programmed. Squad meets enemy? Canned response. Platoon meets enemy? Canned response. Company gets bogged down? Canned response. Maybe you have an inkling of possible squad-level tactics from playing a game. It doesn't matter. Everyone on the squad needs to be trained *together* to do the job *together*. It's likely the job is to shoot when you're told to shoot, run when you're told to run, and stay on your feet and awake without bitching disturbingly much.

 

[DeathSniper]

It's funny so many people discount the mentality of a real-life situation. In paintball, you can "buy more paintballs". In paintball, you can respawn next round. At a gun range, you can take your time and shoot when you're ready. What would you do if you had an insect crawl up your leg? Mosquito on your face? Mind you, I'm only bringing up some of the points. Aim and shoot and the whole "headshot" mentality derived from today's FPS' can indeed transfer over to a real-life situation, but it is just an oh-so small piece of the puzzle. As Pia mentioned the real question is - can you do as you're told without asking questions?