<div class="IPBDescription">Hey this is ...</div>well this is pretty cool, The United States army will soon put out a free game, Americasarmy.com has all the details and the game seems to be a CS/OFP/GR hybrid. looks cool
I read a very detailed spread on this in PC Gamer. It looks extremely good. Of course, if it had Marines it would be better but you can't have everything.
I'll stay short on this topic cause I don't want to raise another twenty page discussion about liberalism, but this game is a sad day for me.
I won't start ranting about how the Pentagons activities in Hollywood have led to a mass of overly patriotic and mostly crappy movies and how I fear this'll repeat in the game industry, I simply fear that this game will help some idiots in my country to go on with their 'Games train killers' campaigns.
Right now, Edmund Stoiber, one of the two big candidates for chancellorship, proclaims that he'll forbid any kind of FPS if he gets elected. That's right, I'm talking about complete <b>censorship</b> here, and America's Army fits his argumentation so damn well that I could cry.
even if some idiot claims he'll forbid First Person Shooters, I doubt that would ever pass. Remember, the video game industry is litterally bigger than the hollywood movie industry, the government cant just get rid of it.
Since America's Army is a blatant recruitment vehicle for ..well.. America's Army, I think it would be rather ridiculous for it to spread outside the U.S. much. However, outlawing FPS of all types seems EXTREMELY crazy. NZ you're profile has you listed in Germany. Are there many people in Germany who feel the same as the candidate you quoted?
Resentiments against FPSes are on an all time high since the terrible events at Erfurt (the guy is said to have played CS a lot), and as PC Games aren't very established in Germanys culture yet (we're still in the 'greasy hair and lives in the basement' phase), so Stoiber and the mass media simply think they can bash us. It may be true that 'we' are bigger than Hollywood, but that won't help if no one knows.
Let's hope Stoiber doesn't hear about Day of Defeat. I can just imagine that #### hitting the fan. Politicians are always going to try and find someone to blame for tragic events. Lately, it's either Hollywood or video games. I doubt though, that there would be any way to meaningfully enforce a law like that. Anyone with a broadband connection can get FPS.
I heard about this and signed up for mah free copy already <!--emo&:p--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':p'><!--endemo--> There is a pretty funny comic and new thing to go along with it at <a href="http://www.penny-arcade.com" target="_blank">http://www.penny-arcade.com</a> if ya wanna check that out. As for banning all fps... they tired to do something kinda like that with beer, and guess what happen. It came back ;P
hey I am goin to west point so back off the army, yes this is a recuritment tool, after you get past the libral american mindset, if video games make people more effective killers the army wants to mold those people, America is having a hard time finding people (like myself)who are willing to kill or be killed for their country. But if you are a libral ( i am so sry for you) then its another game and stick to picking on SOF.
Hey they aren't forcing us to play it. It's a recuitment tool all right, but hopefully a fun one. I'll most likely give it a shot (pun not intended).
As for banning FPS, I can't say it doesn't surpise me from Germans I've met in other boards. But I still don't like it at all. I hope it doesn't come to pass, Nem.
I don't care who you are, what you do during crucial learning stages of your life affects how you turn out. If you're watching porn and playing violent video games at the age of 6-12 (depending on maturity level), it -WILL- affect you. Once you've established clear lines of good and bad, you can distinguish between having fun playing a game and saying "hey, let's point this shotgun at my buddy and pull the trigger."
It's up to the parents to decide when their kid is responsible enough to handle these kinds of things.
Personaly, I don't really care if they want to give me a kick ### looking game like this.
I'm very into these R6 type games and hell - if they want to give it away ... sign me up!
Sure, you have to go through basic training and learn about the army and pass the classes before you can play - but so what, I like that kind of realism, reminds me of SWAT (the first one ...)
I'm sorry to burst everyones bubble, but just because Tycho said people would argue against AA saying it's propaganda it doesn't mean that they're actually doing so.
Discussions against such agressive forms of advertising are indeed futile - even I, a die hard left liberal am willing to admit that.
What I'm worried about is the impact such engagements will have on the games.
Let me raise the example of Hollywood again: Every producer working on a military themed movie is happy to accept the help he can get from the Pentagon - they're even offering whole squads for difficult stunts the normal experts couldn't perform, and this at low or even no cost. In turn, the movies aren't critizising the people they practically got money from.
Don't get me wrong, I can fully understand the armys motives; if you're investing tons of money just to get bad PR, you're simply an idiot.
These facts however killed more than one brilliant film that couldn't afford performing the necessary scenes without of military help. One might say that this isn't the Pentagons fault and that the producers should have simply gathered more money, but you shouldn't forget that <i>everyone</i> is using those army services; there are some types of stunts (special paragliding stuff) and GFx (think 'F-15' ) that aren't offered by anyone but the army anymore; the Pentagon is what you might call 'heavy competition'. Think about it - it took Steven Spielberg and 'Saving Private Ryan' to show American troops shooting German soldiers who had already surrendered, although no historican would've doubted such events; even Hicks has to admit that every army has its load of pigs.
Now imagine similiar circumstances in gaming. Let's say, for example, that the military starts offering motion capturing, weapon models, physics data and such things to developers who're willing to implement patriotic, propagandesque scenes in their game.
I'm sure that there will be many good games that use such services and stay true to themselves, but I already moan for the few brilliant games that'll never get produced.
On the topic of PC games affecting juvelines, I fully agree with Rob. Raising children is simply not the job of the state. I doubt that the cencorship law would pass - we've still got a constitution, after all. It's the public opinion that seems to think everyone playing CS is a potential murderer I fear.
<!--QuoteBegin--Hicks+June 06 2002,20:21--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> (Hicks @ June 06 2002,20:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->America is having a hard time finding people (like myself)who are willing to kill or be killed for their country.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm with you on that boat. My plans after getting my BS in math? joining the US Air Force and going through their pilot school so I can train to become a bomber pilot.
NZ, I'm afraid I really can't agree with you that the Pentagon is going to become the sole provider of military expertise to game developers. I think there are several points where the analogy between the movies and games breaks down.
1). The movies have to film actual objects. Despite everything Lucas has done to give us photo-realistic computer graphics, if you're going to film a completely realistic F-15 dog fight you still need an F-15. In the U.S. at least, the Pentagon has a monoploy on those. Thus, film producers have to go to the military at some point.
By contrast, the gaming industry doesn't have that same restriction. You don't need an F-15 to make a flight simulator. You just need good pictures and you can get those anywhere. Thus, the military is never involved.
2). The Army is not developing their own exclusive gaming technology. Everything they are using for America's Army is coming straight from long haired, sandal wearing, Mountain Dew guzzling American civilians. Engine? Unreal Tournament, in use under a standard licensing agreement. Developers? Civilian contractors hired by the Army. (see the latest PC Gamer issue for an article to back this up) In short, there is no reason for the gaming industry to start going to the Army for gaming knowledge because the Army is not an expert in gaming. They've just hired the experts the same way any company would.
The only thing the Army is lending to this project is an air of realism. If the developers want to model an M-16 the Army can let them hold an M-16. If they need info. on squad tactics the Army can get a squad and show them. But that information is also available from other sources. Pictures, tactics manuals, in America you could even go down to the gun store and ask to see an AR-15 (the civilian version of the M-16) to make sure your model is realistic.
To summarize, I don't think the military will become as important to the gaming industry as it is to movie industry because the actual hardware (F-15, M-16 etc.) doesn't matter much at all in games and any knowledge the military could provide gamers is also available from other sources. There is no reason for game developers to compromise their artistic integrity for anything the military has to offer.
I didn't mean to say that the army will definetely reach the amount of influence on games as it has on movies, but you've got to admit that the possibility exists - Jane's used army physics for their flight models, for example, and don't underestimate the power money can have on creative processes. If the Pentagon started handing 3D scanned M16 out for free, you would see many studios practically jumping to meet their requirements.
I admit that all this is hypotethical - it was only meant as an example of how the innocent offer of free 'military media' may turn out.
I'm not against AA by default, but we should keep our eyes open on this - just like every govenmental action should be seen with a little sucpicion.
SpoogeThunderbolt missile in your cheeriosJoin Date: 2002-01-25Member: 67Members
I must be missing the point of this discussion. Is there some concern that the American military is going to take over the PC gaming industry? And they've supposedly taken over Hollywood?
Wow. I've heard some crazy conspiracy theories but this is one for the books.
Re-read my posts, and please try to read more than the first line of every paragraph this time.
I did never say the army had taken over anything, I said that a multi-billion-$-institution is capable of influencing about every market it starts being active in, sometimes to the better, sometimes to the worse.
It's absolutely understandeable that the army won't support projects that would lead to bad PR for them - Microsoft wouldn't start sponsoring User Friendly either.
SpoogeThunderbolt missile in your cheeriosJoin Date: 2002-01-25Member: 67Members
Well since I'm too busy reading the first line of every post, please explain why this is all a bad thing.
If a "multi billion dollar organization" has the tools and resources capable of performing a task, why not utilize them. It would appear that you believe any group of that size has an evil agenda. Rather pessimistic in my book. Besides, regular print media does more brainwashing every day than any other group could in a lifetime.
Alot of the media squelching and censoring has to do with how the country's community, as a whole, feels about such things at that particular time. Value systems. Right now, the US is pretty dang willing to see the dark side of things, just as much as the light side.
Go back 60-80 years, and you have a whole other story. Hell - in the early days of movies, it was taboo to show a man and a woman in the same bed unless they had full clothing, and each had a foot firmly planted on the floor beside them. A far cry from what we see today, even on supposed "children's" channels.
I'm not saying either way is good or bad, I'm simply saying that as a country evolves and matures, so does the art and creations they produce. It's really what makes for a diverse and colorful history.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well since I'm too busy reading the first line of every post,please explain why this is all a bad thing.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->I did never say the army had taken over anything,I said that a multi-billion-$-institution is capable of influencing about every market it starts being active in,<b>sometimes to the better</b>, sometimes to the worse.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
For the last time, I do <b>not</b> believe that the army has an evil agenda - I don't like what they are doing, but understand that it's sadly a neccessity to defend yourself.
If you want to go on with this discussion, read what I'm writing. I'm simply too lazy to rephrase what I said twice before just so it isn't read either.
Comments
I won't start ranting about how the Pentagons activities in Hollywood have led to a mass of overly patriotic and mostly crappy movies and how I fear this'll repeat in the game industry, I simply fear that this game will help some idiots in my country to go on with their 'Games train killers' campaigns.
Right now, Edmund Stoiber, one of the two big candidates for chancellorship, proclaims that he'll forbid any kind of FPS if he gets elected. That's right, I'm talking about complete <b>censorship</b> here, and America's Army fits his argumentation so damn well that I could cry.
<!--EDIT|Nemesis Zero|June 06 2002,14:53-->
Resentiments against FPSes are on an all time high since the terrible events at Erfurt (the guy is said to have played CS a lot), and as PC Games aren't very established in Germanys culture yet (we're still in the 'greasy hair and lives in the basement' phase), so Stoiber and the mass media simply think they can bash us. It may be true that 'we' are bigger than Hollywood, but that won't help if no one knows.
<!--EDIT|Nemesis Zero|June 06 2002,15:33-->
<!--EDIT|Graheim|June 06 2002,16:15-->
But if you are a libral ( i am so sry for you) then its another game and stick to picking on SOF.
As for banning FPS, I can't say it doesn't surpise me from Germans I've met in other boards. But I still don't like it at all. I hope it doesn't come to pass, Nem.
It's up to the parents to decide when their kid is responsible enough to handle these kinds of things.
<!--EDIT|rob6264|June 06 2002,22:39-->
[/end sarsacm]
[/roll eyes]
I'm very into these R6 type games and hell - if they want to give it away ... sign me up!
Sure, you have to go through basic training and learn about the army and pass the classes before you can play - but so what, I like that kind of realism, reminds me of SWAT (the first one ...)
Discussions against such agressive forms of advertising are indeed futile - even I, a die hard left liberal am willing to admit that.
What I'm worried about is the impact such engagements will have on the games.
Let me raise the example of Hollywood again:
Every producer working on a military themed movie is happy to accept the help he can get from the Pentagon - they're even offering whole squads for difficult stunts the normal experts couldn't perform, and this at low or even no cost.
In turn, the movies aren't critizising the people they practically got money from.
Don't get me wrong, I can fully understand the armys motives; if you're investing tons of money just to get bad PR, you're simply an idiot.
These facts however killed more than one brilliant film that couldn't afford performing the necessary scenes without of military help. One might say that this isn't the Pentagons fault and that the producers should have simply gathered more money, but you shouldn't forget that <i>everyone</i> is using those army services; there are some types of stunts (special paragliding stuff) and GFx (think 'F-15' ) that aren't offered by anyone but the army anymore; the Pentagon is what you might call 'heavy competition'.
Think about it - it took Steven Spielberg and 'Saving Private Ryan' to show American troops shooting German soldiers who had already surrendered, although no historican would've doubted such events; even Hicks has to admit that every army has its load of pigs.
Now imagine similiar circumstances in gaming. Let's say, for example, that the military starts offering motion capturing, weapon models, physics data and such things to developers who're willing to implement patriotic, propagandesque scenes in their game.
I'm sure that there will be many good games that use such services and stay true to themselves, but I already moan for the few brilliant games that'll never get produced.
On the topic of PC games affecting juvelines, I fully agree with Rob. Raising children is simply not the job of the state.
I doubt that the cencorship law would pass - we've still got a constitution, after all. It's the public opinion that seems to think everyone playing CS is a potential murderer I fear.
<!--EDIT|Nemesis Zero|June 07 2002,06:54-->
I'm with you on that boat. My plans after getting my BS in math? joining the US Air Force and going through their pilot school so I can train to become a bomber pilot.
1). The movies have to film actual objects. Despite everything Lucas has done to give us photo-realistic computer graphics, if you're going to film a completely realistic F-15 dog fight you still need an F-15. In the U.S. at least, the Pentagon has a monoploy on those. Thus, film producers have to go to the military at some point.
By contrast, the gaming industry doesn't have that same restriction. You don't need an F-15 to make a flight simulator. You just need good pictures and you can get those anywhere. Thus, the military is never involved.
2). The Army is not developing their own exclusive gaming technology. Everything they are using for America's Army is coming straight from long haired, sandal wearing, Mountain Dew guzzling American civilians. Engine? Unreal Tournament, in use under a standard licensing agreement. Developers? Civilian contractors hired by the Army. (see the latest PC Gamer issue for an article to back this up) In short, there is no reason for the gaming industry to start going to the Army for gaming knowledge because the Army is not an expert in gaming. They've just hired the experts the same way any company would.
The only thing the Army is lending to this project is an air of realism. If the developers want to model an M-16 the Army can let them hold an M-16. If they need info. on squad tactics the Army can get a squad and show them. But that information is also available from other sources. Pictures, tactics manuals, in America you could even go down to the gun store and ask to see an AR-15 (the civilian version of the M-16) to make sure your model is realistic.
To summarize, I don't think the military will become as important to the gaming industry as it is to movie industry because the actual hardware (F-15, M-16 etc.) doesn't matter much at all in games and any knowledge the military could provide gamers is also available from other sources. There is no reason for game developers to compromise their artistic integrity for anything the military has to offer.
<!--EDIT|Graheim|June 07 2002,14:46-->
I admit that all this is hypotethical - it was only meant as an example of how the innocent offer of free 'military media' may turn out.
I'm not against AA by default, but we should keep our eyes open on this - just like every govenmental action should be seen with a little sucpicion.
Wow. I've heard some crazy conspiracy theories but this is one for the books.
Re-read my posts, and please try to read more than the first line of every paragraph this time.
I did never say the army had taken over anything, I said that a multi-billion-$-institution is capable of influencing about every market it starts being active in, sometimes to the better, sometimes to the worse.
It's absolutely understandeable that the army won't support projects that would lead to bad PR for them - Microsoft wouldn't start sponsoring User Friendly either.
Conspiracy? No.
Agressive PR? Yes.
If a "multi billion dollar organization" has the tools and resources capable of performing a task, why not utilize them. It would appear that you believe any group of that size has an evil agenda. Rather pessimistic in my book. Besides, regular print media does more brainwashing every day than any other group could in a lifetime.
Go back 60-80 years, and you have a whole other story. Hell - in the early days of movies, it was taboo to show a man and a woman in the same bed unless they had full clothing, and each had a foot firmly planted on the floor beside them. A far cry from what we see today, even on supposed "children's" channels.
I'm not saying either way is good or bad, I'm simply saying that as a country evolves and matures, so does the art and creations they produce. It's really what makes for a diverse and colorful history.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->I did never say the army had taken over anything,I said that a multi-billion-$-institution is capable of influencing about every market it starts being active in,<b>sometimes to the better</b>, sometimes to the worse.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
For the last time, I do <b>not</b> believe that the army has an evil agenda - I don't like what they are doing, but understand that it's sadly a neccessity to defend yourself.
If you want to go on with this discussion, read what I'm writing. I'm simply too lazy to rephrase what I said twice before just so it isn't read either.
<!--EDIT|Nemesis Zero|June 08 2002,11:02-->