{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
HRH FURYにより編集済み:
6/16/2016 7:59:33 PM
62
I've edited this thread to summarize the BS that has derailed the original post. Say what you will....Yes. I spent some time crafting this, because I believe it's fundamentally important to address the ignorance, disrespect, and pervasive entitlement...seriously...the whining and entitlement on these forums are beyond unbelievable....I really start to grow concerned with the socialist leaning "participation trophy" culture that is infesting and transforming our youth and adults.
So, I'll start with the illusion called "Balance" and the overwhelming need for it expressed by pervasive complaints. "Balance" in complex tactical sims is pure fiction. "Balance in the real world is either an illusion or a farce. Nothing is "fair" on a battlefield...hell nothing is ever "fair" in life. Move past it. Find solutions, tactics, strategies that counter or innovate (that is what the game is designed to "train"). There is always a strategic or tactical advantage based on the conditions of the combat theater and combatants. The challenge is overcoming and dealing with what "appears" to be "unfair" and becoming victorious despite the perception of advantage or disadvantage. "Stop the whining and excuses and FIND A WAY TO WIN soldier!" (Some or many of you will here this in the future....I guarantee it)
What I find most ironic is that people don't realize that the gov has a significant vested interest and investment in combat sim / shooter games. It is a forefront priority training tool. The armed forces contract and provide funding to each of the major gaming labels to increase production of these style of games as a pre-military training tool and recruiting tool (hence the significant rise in these games over the last decade as worldwide conflict and US and UK intervention increases). Even the NSA,CIA, and FBI have investments in the collection of Intel (some of which were exposed to the public recently).
Military research has shown that developing children's and adolescent's brains become permanently wired for the core abilities/attributes being trained by these games as a foundation for current and future combat skills (when these games are introduced into their development). Ultimately, the reasons you are seeing so many complex factors being incorporated into weapon modifiers, skills, attributes, fire team tactics and most importantly the "long term expansions" of a single game is to keep that "gamer" (i.e. "trainee") invested and continuing in their combat training development.
One major advantage to all this is the fact that it trains these attributes for years starting with brain and nervous system development focused on natural combat attributes becoming innate and ultimately influencing a part of who they are or will be as an adult...because trying to program enhancements in these "wired" behaviors into an adult is extremely difficult, costly, if not impossible for some attributes (reaction speeds, peripheral awareness, agility, hand snd eye coordination, digestion/analysis of multiple technical streams of combat related data in making split second tactical decisions). These "expansion based ten year games" coupled with mega data collection analysis of "game play" are ideal for the shifting these sims towards continual influence toward certain desired tactical behaviors through "nerfs" "rewards" or other "patch changes" that appear on the surface as "unnecessary" to "a game" however, like ALL military training this ensures that appropriate focus on certain desired attributes, skills, and the re-programming of the perception of what is "normal" (like training and instilling "adaptability" throug frequent environmental changes) ensure that the desired behavioral and skill development are ongoing and progressive. Moreover, privileged entitled children in third world countries (where the battlefield is frequently found) who have Xboxs and PlayStations are far and few.
Yes...the tracking grenades and tracking rifle projectiles (hidden hand) are in real development, trip mines, cloaking tech, thermite grenades, enhanced body armor and HUD displays, fusion like projectiles, rail guns, etc....ALL ARE REAL or in development. But it's "just a game" right?
Oh the irony...the anti-military dissenters (like the ones on this thread and other threads), being trained for combat with growing realistic combat sims incorporating and requiring "fire team" tactical skills when the need arises for them to serve their country, and they think it's "just a game". My advice to you is grow up and start showing the proper respect to those who have "served" and "protect" you. Think again when you choose to whine about "balance" or "unfairness".
Because the day is coming (what they don't understand) when all the whining and entitlement will be forcibly replaced with "accountability" and "sheer will to win", no matter how "unfair" something appears or is, when they actually are called upon and indoctrinated to "serve their country" to protect the freedoms of both this nation (which they take for granted) or the multiple other nation's peoples in order to perpetuate the culture of individual freedom providing an umbrella of protection that only selfless professions provide by choosing to die and kill for the belief of freedom being an inalienable human right. It's so easy for some to ignorantly criticize and make derogatory comments to those who "serve their country" in a world where they are so protected and so far removed from the overwhelming realities of oppression, human slavery, genocide, starvation, -blam!-, and theft that surround them outside their bubble.
It's irritating to say the least to see people on these forums, from the comfort of an arm chair make the comments they make while enjoying the benefits of the umbrella of protection we provide them as selfless committed citizens. And as the globe continues to fall into civil strife, the day is not so far off from when they will be called to defend those freedoms themselves and our interests abroad necessary to maintain those freedoms. So....for now if it makes them feel better... Tell yourself ..."It's just a game" and that complex fire team combat tactical sims "should be fair".....
If you don't "believe" me or my experience" in serving...your right as a "free" citizen (unfortunately many of the posts below exhibit substantial ignorance) here is a small sample of a brief article that only scratches the surface.
https://takefiveblog.org/2012/10/09/more-than-a-game-the-defense-department-and-the-first-person-shooter/
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2014-10-03-us-military-can-learn-from-game-marketing-says-ex-call-of-duty-director
(Pay attention to the "brain washing quote")
http://www.versiondaily.com/how-the-u-s-uses-video-games-for-military-training/
http://web.science.mq.edu.au/~isvr/Documents/pdf%20files/game-master/GameReport_Bonk_final.pdf
And for all you cheeky Brits and Euros out there... You haven't been left out...
http://archive.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=1150
[b]NATO Group Holds Video-Gaming Session[/b]
"[b]We have some agreements with game companies,[/b]” Wisher said. “[b]We provide subject matter experts because it will be closer to what we need for training,[/b] and the game will look more real.”
Tim Tate, director of ADL’s job performance technology center, said young people are increasingly using technology to learn, and [b]DoD aims to expand its efforts in this area[/b]. “Younger people are very enthused about games,” Tate said. “We wanted to make this part of military training.”
U.S. enemies will always come up with surprise tactics, but [b]the ultimate goal of using the games is to save lives by preparing troops for what they might face and improving their lethality,[/b] Tate said.
English
-
Just a note for anyone coming across this guys posts don't bother with him just another troll parading as a member of the armed forces on the loose, make sure to mute this one and save yourself the trouble of seeing anymore posts by him, because we all know that any real member pf the armed forces that has seen combat wouldn't be making these kinds of posts. So remember Mute and move along, unless reading tasteless and completely boring troll posts is your thing.
-
Here you go. Keep telling yourself that.... More than a Game: the Defense Department and the First Person Shooter Posted by Derek Caelin Earlier this month Take Five launched a series on serious games and the way that various organizations use games as a tool to communicate. This week, we take closer look at how the military has been using games to pursue its recruiting and public relations goals. In some ways, the Department of Defense has an easy job relating to the American media. Americans seem to like action and violence. Soldiers and government spies consistently break records at the movies and games box office – the military shooter franchise Call of Duty, for example, is worth over $3 billion dollars and is one of the most profitable franchises in gaming history. It should be no surprise, therefore, that DoD has some influence this scene, giving advice and support to many movies and games companies regarding how things are done in the military. The army even has a consultation bureau which will offer government support as long as the production in question adheres to some strict guidelines about the depiction of the military. Government consultation with a franchise lends it an air of legitimacy, although viewers of last February’s film “Act of Valor”, in which the actors were active-duty Navy SEALs, can affirm that it is no guarantor of quality. While there are plenty of movies critical of the U.S. government and the intelligence or military branches, the Defense Department is at least able to operate and influence the military-oriented media scene, generating popular content that projects the U.S. military in a positive light. Games, as well as movies, are starting to occupy the military’s attention in some interesting ways. As with other forms of media, DoD’s goal in gaming is to increase public understanding of the Armed Forces and the Department of Defense and to assist Armed Forces recruiting and retention programs. One of its more successful forays into the games world is the “America’s Army” franchise, a first-person shooter (FPS) series developed and published by the U.S. armed forces. The game places a heavy emphasis on realism; the models of weapons and their sound effects are accurate to real world weapons; the player’s aim is affected by whether he is running or standing. Considerable emphasis, too, is placed on encouraging teamwork among the player soldiers. Earlier this month Take Five launched a series on serious games and the way that various organizations use games as a tool to communicate. This week, we take closer look at how the military has been using games to pursue its recruiting and public relations goals. In some ways, the Department of Defense has an easy job relating to the American media. Americans seem to like action and violence. Soldiers and government spies consistently break records at the movies and games box office – the military shooter franchise Call of Duty, for example, is worth over $3 billion dollars and is one of the most profitable franchises in gaming history. It should be no surprise, therefore, that DoD has some influence this scene, giving advice and support to many movies and games companies regarding how things are done in the military. The army even has a consultation bureau which will offer government support as long as the production in question adheres to some strict guidelines about the depiction of the military. Government consultation with a franchise lends it an air of legitimacy, although viewers of last February’s film “Act of Valor”, in which the actors were active-duty Navy SEALs, can affirm that it is no guarantor of quality. While there are plenty of movies critical of the U.S. government and the intelligence or military branches, the Defense Department is at least able to operate and influence the military-oriented media scene, generating popular content that projects the U.S. military in a positive light. Games, as well as movies, are starting to occupy the military’s attention in some interesting ways. As with other forms of media, DoD’s goal in gaming is to increase public understanding of the Armed Forces and the Department of Defense and to assist Armed Forces recruiting and retention programs. One of its more successful forays into the games world is the “America’s Army” franchise, a first-person shooter (FPS) series developed and published by the U.S. armed forces. The game places a heavy emphasis on realism; the models of weapons and their sound effects are accurate to real world weapons; the player’s aim is affected by whether he is running or standing. Considerable emphasis, too, is placed on encouraging teamwork among the player soldiers. The Army strove for a realistic feel in “America’s Army” to drive recruitment and set reasonable expectations for the challenges of Army life. There’s more at stake for the army than simply to boost gamer’s achievement scores. In 2011 U.S. Army were expected to recruit at least 64,000 new service members – an expensive proposition, considering the Army spends about $15,000 to recruit every soldier. So it doesn’t make many new enthusiastic signups to make “America’s Army” worthwhile, especially as the designers hope to discourage costly washouts by accurately demonstrating the rigors of military life. And while it seems that the age of the average gamer is around 35, the college-age player that is the prime demographic for recruitment is the most expensive to recruit – getting him or her to sign up on the basis a games purchase is a recruiter’s home run. Thus far, in terms of user engagement, the series has been a great success, ranked in the top 10 first-person shooter games played online between 2002 and 2008, with thousands of players online at any time according to Gamespy. Not bad for for $32 million investment over a decade. Part of the reason for this success is that the mechanics of the series fall so neatly into existing frameworks for play. First-person shooter games have been around since the early 1990s and, in addition to having been huge earners for games consoles, spawned an entire generation of designers who know how to construct exactly how to create them. “America’s Army”, fitting neatly into this genre, is able to draw upon decades of game design; All that is required is to translate the Army’s field manual into a design document for gameplay. On the consumer end of the process, little effort is required to incorporate the game into the existing scene. The fact that American culture already regularly consumes entertainment media revolving around the military ensures that what the Defense Department has to say, people will pay to experience. Games seem to fit well with the DoD’s ethos on a mechanical level. Games often revolve competition, cooperation, and the achievement of goals – not to mention the violence that so often fascinates a human audience. These concepts are the Defense Department’s very bread and butter, and what makes video games such an effective medium and tool for the military branch of the U.S. government. Games like “America’s Army” are important for internal consumption as well as external – since the army owns every asset that goes into the game, it can re-use the materials for other projects, such as training software. When next week we look at State Department’s cautious foray’s into games, we’ll be asking a number of the same questions. What are State’s goals with games? What challenges does the organization face in using the medium as a tool? Stay tuned.
-
Still think it's "just a game"..... Why do you think all the best gear is obtained from the "Raid" missions or from the "light house"....lol. Read on... http://www.versiondaily.com/how-the-u-s-uses-video-games-for-military-training/ The Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness released a 2005 technical report conducted by Curtis J. Bonk and Vanessa P. Dennen. The report revealed that online multiplayer video games replicate scenarios in the real world, specifically the use of dynamic and decentralised online environment in military operations. Through online games, DoD is able to explore the quality and speed of online decision-making. Another result from the report revealed that video games allow trainers to identify the strengths and weaknesses of trainees. To be specific, different types of video games can address preferences for different learning styles. Identifying weaknesses is important simply because it creates a feedback loop in which trainers are able to provide trainers additional training in problem areas. Several studies have demonstrated the positive impacts of playing video games, particularly in sharpening the cognitive and perceptual abilities of individuals. Specifically, one study revealed that gamers who play action-packed and fast-paced games have greater visual performance and prediction capacity than those who play non-action games. Another study concluded that gamers see the world differently than non-gamers. It is possible that these individuals see more immediately and they are better able to make the most appropriate decisions from available information. A research from the DoD also revealed that gamers perform 10 to 20 percent better in terms of perceptual and cognitive abilities compared to non-gamers. The same research mentioned that gamers have longer attention spans and larger field of visions. The aforementioned studies nonetheless provide a logical reason to use video games for military training. The creation of ADL and other initiatives are revealing of the fact that the U.S. government, especially the Department of Defense acknowledges the benefits that tagged along trainings centred on video gaming. It is important to note that apart from the Department of Defense, the Department of the Navy has also acknowledge the importance of video games in training navy personnel. Dr. Ray Perez, a program officer at the warfighter performance department of the Office of Naval Research, said that gamers make better soldiers. Perez have been conducting research regarding the development of training technologies and training methods to improve performance on the battlefield. One of his studies revealed that video games help trainees become better thinkers or problem solver. In recognising the benefits of video games, Perez and his team have been exploring possible and effective ways to integrate video game technology into learning tools. According to a commentary by Derek Caelin of the Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication, video games seem to fit well with the ethos of the U.S. Department of Defense on a mechanical level. Simply put, video games often revolve competition, cooperation, and the achievement of goals—concepts that are the bread and butter of DoD. Thus, the use of video games for military training is inevitable if not valuable. Details of the report of Paul McLeary are in the article “Pentagon taps video games for training” published in 2008 by Aviation Week Network. More details of the report of Bonk and Dennen are in the article “Massive multiplayer online gaming: A research framework for military training and education” published by Advanced Distributed Learning and the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness. Further details of the report of Steven Donald Smith are in the article “NATO group holds video-gaming session” published in 2006 in DoD News. The commentary of Caelin in the article “More than a game: The defense department and the first person shooter” published in Take Five, the official blog of the Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication.
-
Really fire team leader, did you have a lot of experience shooting heavily shielded enemies with fusion rifles when you were serving our country? A real soldier has respect, this guy did some math, which probably had you confused, so you lashed out at him with a cur and paste response probably from your mommy's basement. Don't claim to be something you are not, and if you are being legit stop boasting about it. You know guys that brag are usually liers.
-
You really live in your own world don't you. I don't need to brag about my experience or what I do professionally on the internet. You post does attack the op you do not even mention Bungie unless you edited it. I do not know any public servant that acts like you, I would have been ashamed if I served by you. But then again you are probably some Internet Ninja warrior with no life in mommy's basement that just got off of CoD and think you know how real weapons work. Good day have fun in your fantasy world.
-
HRH FURYにより編集済み: 6/16/2016 5:19:45 PM... Not bragging. However the DMV, TSA, and your local welfare office are probably not the best comparison to use for "public service" benchmarks. ... I'm now certain your chances would be high in being listed on a "friendly fire" incident report.
-
Too bad your supposed service to our country didn't help with your combat skills in this game. You'd think someone who makes the point that military service makes them more worthy to give opinions on on weapons would at least be able to play the F'n game.
-
I didn't state an opinion, I stated a fact. You suck ass at this game, attacked someone else for their opinion, equated your authority on the matter to being a "military combat expert", and even had the nerve to be hypocritical enough to call me a keyboard warrior(when you attacked someone for no good reason).
-
HRH FURYにより編集済み: 6/16/2016 5:29:46 PMSome people just don't quit. Not sure where you get off critiquing my stats... Have you looked at yours. FYI...nube. There are a lot of factors affecting stats one of which is 2 kids playing on my account that does wonders for consistent K/D ratios... What's your excuse?
-
Damn... I'm truly disappointed. You play on Xbox. Since you are so awesome at the game, and have a bunch of excuses on why it is that your stats don't reflect it, it's going to be difficult to get you to put your money where your mouth is. However, I'm a motivated person. If I am able to borrow a friends account on the Xbox and download the game, would you be down for some friendly competition? If you can beat me, I'll take back what I said about you sucking ass at this game. If I win perhaps you will learn some basic human respect.
-
HRH FURYにより編集済み: 6/16/2016 5:34:41 PMJust the facts m'am... Just the facts...lol. Yes that's me laughing at you. I wish we could 1 vs 1. This combat veteran would take you to school. When my children aren't killing my k/D ratio I average between 2-3.5 K/D a game with 15-22 kills per game. So..., lucky for you, you'll just have to "believe it or not" ..probably for the best though. I'd hate to destroy what appears to be a very fragile self worth.
-
Then accept the challenge. We can do classic Rumble, and I'll have one other friend Join who will AFK, leaving only you me and two others. We can tally our scores after 3 matches. I'll use a friends account and only use the guns he has available, no meta. You can use whatever you want.
-
Just checked your stats...might wanna provide better evidence of your "skill" before posting all over because EVERYONE can see your stats. Definitely nothing there to back up for 3.0 kd and finishing top in rumble every time. Actually the character that seems to be your main has a win ratio of 0.15, a far cry from winning constantly. Just saying.
-
You mean like you? The guy who paid Sherpas to play your game to get to the "lighthouse" ... Lol. Wow... The nasty ignorance is pervasive. Maybe that's the real reason why Bungie caves in to all the crying... I can see them saying "Just make the Madness Stop!" lol! (Yes, I'm laughing at you too)
-
Nope trials is about teamwork, something that with your attitude I'm sure you know nothing about. Three average players using teamwork and communication goes a long way. Been flawless 28 times and completed everything in the game,if you weren't such a dick maybe you could ass well, but I can't imagine that many people are willing to put up with you.
