America's Army Game: More Than a Game?
America's Army game made its début a few years ago, and after several patches and fixes, it is now at 2.8.5 in version from its original. The US Military, The Defense Department, and obviously Our Government seeing success from this release, went on to create AA3, or America's Army Game 3, a new release based on the Unreal Engine Graphics and Technology, developed by Epic Games. These games however were made by both the military and private sector code writers, in a montage of military insights, and highly knowledgeable game creators.
AA3 did not receive a very thankful audience, it was and still is for some, a very buggy, lagged, and in some ways unplayable release. Most complaints were on the game play, menu, and behavior of the game on-line. Developers of the game and America's Army Game site admins dodged hateful player's questions and comments on their forums, then along came huge game patches, in the attempt to solve the problems, which if you are familiar with AA2, you might remember all the bugs it had at the start of its release.
Our tax dollars mind you, have paid the way for these games. It took millions to make it, and a few million more to get it into the hands of players, not just in America, but around the world. We paid the sum of a total cost of $33M in the form of tax dollars for the release of AA3.
Both games were and still are trying to recruit, and teach American Army Values to the public, but mostly for teenagers as a whole, to inspire them to join the Army or get interested in our Military Branches.
Both games teach a long list of valuable knowledge, from weapon identification, to actual first aid lessons. You do have to go through boot camp, weapon familiarization, medical first aid training, marksmanship, and a assortment of other weapon training, all along you can play and learn at the same time.
The question is, why? Is this game just a great recruiter, or does it go deeper?
Talking with some men and women from the Army itself, I asked some questions about the game. A military woman and avid game player, recently home from Iraq, and honorably discharged, took her first look at AA2+AA3 at my home here in N.C.
She felt the graphics were great in both versions, and enjoyed the game play in both. She then answered a few questions I had. My belief is that these games are more than a recruitment tool, but maybe possibly a trainer as well to some extent.
What I believe is the United States Defense Department is never going to spend the millions it spent, on something to just help get in new recruits and put on the market, a video game for the fun of it. Although I believe it helps with recruitment and grabbing the attention of young minds, I also believe that the actions shown in-game, and the visuals are also intended to help familiarize "civilians" with weapon loading, and usage.
In the small recesses of imagination, would it be possible to consider the game a tool, to insure civilians, in game play ages from 60-14 know how to load and operate a weapon, that if dropped in a home front war zone by a fallen soldier, the new owner a "civilian" would then be able to identify the weapon, and use it properly.
This lady of honor said this when I asked her about how she felt about my assumption.
"Sure, with the US weapons, and others, the movements and actual loading are almost exact." "I do believe that after a few hundred rounds of playing this game, you would become familiar enough to use the weapon correctly, especially with the 3.0 game, which is much more realistic!"
So am I just playing a game here? I'm a somewhat avid player of the older version, basically for its gentleman like quality. You get shot, you die, there is no auto re-spawn, and for the most part, the players are men and women in my age group. There is of course the younger crowd, but for the most part, those who play the game areolder than the intended audience.
America's Government invented a FPS (First Person Shooter) and funded the creation of the AA series on the premise, and what I believe the shroud of recruitment, and maybe skillfully teaching "civilians" on the side how to use and operate American weapons? It is my belief, to a short extent, that our defense department isn't as stupid as they seem. It's good to have a well trained military, it's even better to have a well taught civilian population as well.
Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm right, but the fact remains, I know from playing the game myself, I could easily load and fire a lengthy assortment of both American Military Arms, and even Foreign weapons if I ever had to do so, which I haven't, but I know I could..
AA3 did not receive a very thankful audience, it was and still is for some, a very buggy, lagged, and in some ways unplayable release. Most complaints were on the game play, menu, and behavior of the game on-line. Developers of the game and America's Army Game site admins dodged hateful player's questions and comments on their forums, then along came huge game patches, in the attempt to solve the problems, which if you are familiar with AA2, you might remember all the bugs it had at the start of its release.
Our tax dollars mind you, have paid the way for these games. It took millions to make it, and a few million more to get it into the hands of players, not just in America, but around the world. We paid the sum of a total cost of $33M in the form of tax dollars for the release of AA3.
Both games were and still are trying to recruit, and teach American Army Values to the public, but mostly for teenagers as a whole, to inspire them to join the Army or get interested in our Military Branches.
Both games teach a long list of valuable knowledge, from weapon identification, to actual first aid lessons. You do have to go through boot camp, weapon familiarization, medical first aid training, marksmanship, and a assortment of other weapon training, all along you can play and learn at the same time.
The question is, why? Is this game just a great recruiter, or does it go deeper?
Talking with some men and women from the Army itself, I asked some questions about the game. A military woman and avid game player, recently home from Iraq, and honorably discharged, took her first look at AA2+AA3 at my home here in N.C.
She felt the graphics were great in both versions, and enjoyed the game play in both. She then answered a few questions I had. My belief is that these games are more than a recruitment tool, but maybe possibly a trainer as well to some extent.
What I believe is the United States Defense Department is never going to spend the millions it spent, on something to just help get in new recruits and put on the market, a video game for the fun of it. Although I believe it helps with recruitment and grabbing the attention of young minds, I also believe that the actions shown in-game, and the visuals are also intended to help familiarize "civilians" with weapon loading, and usage.
In the small recesses of imagination, would it be possible to consider the game a tool, to insure civilians, in game play ages from 60-14 know how to load and operate a weapon, that if dropped in a home front war zone by a fallen soldier, the new owner a "civilian" would then be able to identify the weapon, and use it properly.
This lady of honor said this when I asked her about how she felt about my assumption.
"Sure, with the US weapons, and others, the movements and actual loading are almost exact." "I do believe that after a few hundred rounds of playing this game, you would become familiar enough to use the weapon correctly, especially with the 3.0 game, which is much more realistic!"
So am I just playing a game here? I'm a somewhat avid player of the older version, basically for its gentleman like quality. You get shot, you die, there is no auto re-spawn, and for the most part, the players are men and women in my age group. There is of course the younger crowd, but for the most part, those who play the game areolder than the intended audience.
America's Government invented a FPS (First Person Shooter) and funded the creation of the AA series on the premise, and what I believe the shroud of recruitment, and maybe skillfully teaching "civilians" on the side how to use and operate American weapons? It is my belief, to a short extent, that our defense department isn't as stupid as they seem. It's good to have a well trained military, it's even better to have a well taught civilian population as well.
Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm right, but the fact remains, I know from playing the game myself, I could easily load and fire a lengthy assortment of both American Military Arms, and even Foreign weapons if I ever had to do so, which I haven't, but I know I could..
0 comments:
Post a Comment