1
1
0
I was Googling on Sunday night for the above report and discovered that Task Force 1-41 is now a unrelated Call of Duty video game. While some might chuckle at that, I think it is sad commercialism I was a civilian at the time of the first Gulf War but I did serve in the 41st Infantry regiment earlier in the decade prior to the Gulf War. The story of Task Force 1-41 is told above in a report (see above report). If you have not fought a war in a long time sometimes training gets rusty and your on the bleeding edge with learning in some areas and I think that is what happened to TF 1-41. A lot of the lessons learned by them with friendly fire hits they took, undoubtedly saved lives later with the GWOT.
a264134.pdf
Posted from dtic.milPosted in these groups: 
Computer Games
Military History
Computer Games Military History
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 2
0
0
0
Honestly, sometimes they have to sensationalize games because most civilians cannot understand some of the events that took place. Also, some event will be boring, from an entertainment point of view. Civilians believe that war is non-stop action. So, companies must deliver...
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
The biggest issue I have with computer games, even ones that I am a part of is the historical context. Either it gets hyped up, or changed , or SOMETHNG to make it work in the area that the game requires. However, with a game it is a game. The link between reality and fiction are whatever the designer wants them to be. My own game is much the same, but I deal in science fiction as much as I can, and I label it as such. The problem with making a game like Call of Duty into a game based on real events is that those events are based on the game designers interpretation of events. Notation and records of said events are classified, lost, or not even taken.
Having said this, Battlefield 1 by Electronic Arts has peaked my interest. When you play the game sna die, it shows the name of a fallen soldier of that war. Accurate or not, REAL or not, they are acknowledging the sacrifice of the soldiers that died in that war. Many games will capitalize on the guns, guts, and blood of fallen people. Battlefield does that, but it gives you a little more about the fallen HEROS of this nation. My own game, even though a work of science fiction, acknowledges that, during the war I have selected, biological and chemical warfare was an option to our enemies and was used.
In that game, death and destruction were always an option and, sadly, used more often than not. Many games today are designed for fun and not to be taken as reality. However, many people want a good story, as opposed to the realities of real combat and warfare. The biggest difference with games and reality is that its a game, it was never meant to be real, or taken as historically accurate. Is it right? Should this be allowed? Does it really matter what we think?
I for one would like to know if my presence when my friends where under fire would have mad e a difference. Could I have fought side by side with my grandfather or not. Video games are based in fiction, nothing more, but for those of use that came after certain key battles, we want to know how we personally would measure up to the greats. Is that true of all? Absolutely not. Too many snot nosed punks that think they are hot shit, but when really tested melt faster than butter. But these games still allow people to dream what would happen if they were in that situation. . . . Food for Thought.
Having said this, Battlefield 1 by Electronic Arts has peaked my interest. When you play the game sna die, it shows the name of a fallen soldier of that war. Accurate or not, REAL or not, they are acknowledging the sacrifice of the soldiers that died in that war. Many games will capitalize on the guns, guts, and blood of fallen people. Battlefield does that, but it gives you a little more about the fallen HEROS of this nation. My own game, even though a work of science fiction, acknowledges that, during the war I have selected, biological and chemical warfare was an option to our enemies and was used.
In that game, death and destruction were always an option and, sadly, used more often than not. Many games today are designed for fun and not to be taken as reality. However, many people want a good story, as opposed to the realities of real combat and warfare. The biggest difference with games and reality is that its a game, it was never meant to be real, or taken as historically accurate. Is it right? Should this be allowed? Does it really matter what we think?
I for one would like to know if my presence when my friends where under fire would have mad e a difference. Could I have fought side by side with my grandfather or not. Video games are based in fiction, nothing more, but for those of use that came after certain key battles, we want to know how we personally would measure up to the greats. Is that true of all? Absolutely not. Too many snot nosed punks that think they are hot shit, but when really tested melt faster than butter. But these games still allow people to dream what would happen if they were in that situation. . . . Food for Thought.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google