PDA

View Full Version : Salon article with comments on America's Army


XPav
01-15-2004, 11:52 AM
http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2004/01/15/johnson_excerpt/index.html

Standard "ohmigod the Army is using gimmick to attract soldiers!" Yeah,well, duh.

Anyway, the part on American's Army:

The army's target for 2002 was to hire 79,500 young adults as new recruits. Demographics and salesmanship matter in trying to raise and retain an all-volunteer army, and, until recently, the main recruiting slogans were "Be all you can be" and "An Army of one" (meaning that the army is a collection of quintessential American individualists). A recent gimmick is a free computer game, called America's Army, aimed directly at capturing the hearts and minds of technology-savvy teenagers. By the autumn of 2002, more than 500,000 copies had been downloaded from americasarmy.com, and recruiters now have a two-CD set of the game to give away to likely prospects. During the summer of 2002, many video-game magazines included the CDs with issues.

The game differs from most other combat videos now on the market in that bullet hits are recorded only by little red puffs instead of gushers of blood and flying body parts. The army wants to avoid any suggestion that actual combat might be unpleasant. According to the game instructions, "When a soldier is killed, that soldier simply falls to the ground and is no longer part of the ongoing mission. The game does not include any dismemberment or disfigurement." In "Soldiers," the second part of the game, players progress through a virtual career in the army, serving in a variety of units and improving their ratings in categories like loyalty, honor, and personal courage as they go. Enemies are portrayed as both white- and black-skinned but have one trait in common -- nearly all of them are unshaven. The government has so far spent $7.6 million to develop the game, and plans to devote about $2.5 million a year to updates and another $1.5 million to maintaining a multiplayer infrastructure. The army hoped to use it to attract 300 to 400 recruits in 2003.

Boy. 300 to 400 recruits. Wow. Talk about having them flock in. I like free FPSes as much as the next guy, but does it seem to anyone else that that number is a little low?

TheWombat
01-15-2004, 11:59 AM
I've talked to the guys doing this game, albeit a couple of years ago, and the intention was never to hit any particular recruitment quota. Rather, it's a strategic marketing tool to get people interested in the Army and build "brand consciousness" among recruitable young adults. PR writ large, not a numbers-driven recruiting tool for short term gain. So the articles 300-400 figure seems pulled out of someone's ass, or a misinterpretation of something someone said. Even the Army doesn't spend that much mone for 400 grunts.

And it's rather unfair to chastise the Army for not showing graphic violence. If they do show graphic violence they get excoriated for pushing ultraviolence to kids. If they don't they get blasted for somehow sugarcoating the realities of warfare. I think it's pretty damn clear to playes of America's Army that real war kills and dismembers, and given how tough and intense that game is I suspect its restrained style of blood and gore depiction actually enhances the impact rather than diminishes it. Gamers tend to associate extreme gibs with goofy silly or just over the top shoot 'em ups for better or for worse.

Linoleum
01-15-2004, 12:33 PM
Boy. 300 to 400 recruits. Wow. Talk about having them flock in. I like free FPSes as much as the next guy, but does it seem to anyone else that that number is a little low?

Not really. Pulling from a 2001 report (www.ausa.org/www/ausanews.nsf/0/4073106d481f8bf585256abe00710c6b?OpenDocument&AutoFramed) on recruitment issues:

DoD officials keenly watch recruit attrition numbers, especially since the cost of recruiting new service members
averages about $11,000 each -- some $3,000 more than just a few years ago, said Navy Cmdr. Yvette BrownWahler, director
for recruiting plans, Office of the Secretary of Defense.

Amoritized over the lifespan of the program, looking at it strictly from a recruiting numbers standpoint, if it results in 300-400 recruits a year it's breaking even. And, of course, there is the PR value. All things considered, the program has been wildly effective.

Kalle
01-15-2004, 12:35 PM
You're probably right, the thing is that even if they show extremely graphic violence in game it still is not real, and the people killed will still get up at the end of the round/match and play again.

Real and final death can be accompanied by gory images, but when it comes to pretend-death I think it just detracts from the realism.

Peter Frazier
01-15-2004, 02:32 PM
What FPS games feature gushes of blood and flying body parts?

Kalle
01-15-2004, 02:34 PM
What FPS games feature gushes of blood and flying body parts?

Soldier of Fortune 1&2.

Gunmetal
01-15-2004, 02:34 PM
Soldier of Fortune 2

Supertanker
01-15-2004, 03:56 PM
UT and UT2003. I assume UT2004, too.

Alan Au
01-15-2004, 07:02 PM
Operation Flashpoint had the messy looking/bloody casualties. Dunno if that counts.

- Alan

Laralyn
01-15-2004, 08:44 PM
Every time I see one of these articles, they always end up mentioning FSW because it started out as an Army training product. I get so frustrated because they're commenting on something they have never actually seen or played. This was reprinted from a book, which was probably written and edited before we started publicizing FSW, so that's most likely the only reason we're not mentioned in it.

This part really irked me:

The game differs from most other combat videos now on the market in that bullet hits are recorded only by little red puffs instead of gushers of blood and flying body parts. The army wants to avoid any suggestion that actual combat might be unpleasant.

So let me get this straight. Now you're criticizing games because they aren't violent ENOUGH? :x

Kyle Wilson
01-16-2004, 09:03 AM
So let me get this straight. Now you're criticizing games because they aren't violent ENOUGH? :x

I think the message here is: Everything anyone associated with the military-industrial complex does is wrong. Everything hippie flower children and snooty magazine writers do is good. It's pretty straightforward, really.