Videogame Logic

[SolidShroom]

Games aren't supposed to be realistic you silly people. THAT'S wHY WE PLAY THEM. To escape reality.

[G-Dawg]

*sings* An escape from reality *sings* Sorry, you reminded me of that song.

[Glorb]

I'm so tired of that response. So, what you're saying is, the military employs training simulators to "escape from reality"? Or that games like Full Spectrum Warrior or Operation Flashpoint are supposed to be escapist? What I'm getting at is that too often, crazy, nonsensical stuff seeps into realism-centered games because the developers are so used to them. I mean, it's sad when, in Brothers in Arms, a game based on a true story, you have a magical compass/radar built into your vision.

[DeadAwake]

So, what you're saying is, the military employs training simulators to "escape from reality"?

Absolutely.  It's quite obvious when you consider the alternative is TAKING BULLETS TO THE HEAD.

[Glorb]

Excuse me, what? The military employs training simulators so that you don't get shot in the head! That's why they're called training simulators and not, say, Super Mario Kart.

So, operating on the same logic, when I grow up and have kids (possibly), I could just lock them in a room and force them to play Paperboy all day in leu of actual bike riding, because you could get scraped real bad riding a bike?

[DeadAwake]

Excuse me, what? The military employs training simulators so that you don't get shot in the head!

Exactly!  That's the reality of war:  bullets to the head!  So in this case the military employs a simulation to escape reality--which is what you somehow contorted into an argument in the opposite direction.

[SolidShroom]

(I didn't know this argument was over what I said)
Anyway, of course games are escaping from reality! Reality is fun sometimes, but come on! Look at SMB! Can you run around outside, bash bricks on your head and eat mushrooms that make you bigger?! Or the GTA series. It seems fun to steal cars and shoot people without anything worse than a game over.
Also, training simulators in the army are supposed to be realistic, but do you really want to play them for fun. That's what the difference between "Video Games" and "Training Simulators".



 

So, operating on the same logic, when I grow up and have kids (possibly), I could just lock them in a room and force them to play Paperboy all day in leu of actual bike riding, because you could get scraped real bad riding a bike?

Ask yourself, would a scrape kill you? The army doesn't want to sacrifice soldiers to train them. I doubt you want America's army either a) going out with no experience to become fodder, or b) Training on eachother, which would kill innocent men that could be invaluable to the fight.

[Glorb]

Yes, but the way DeadAwake (whom I don't have any beef with) was putting it earlier, he said that training simulators were to escape from reality and be played as a game, which is not true. It's meant to prepare them for reality. Not once did I say they should train with live weapons on each other (but the military is training with paintball-style programs, by the way); in fact, I completely condone the use of training simulators, because they can be a more efficient method of traing. of course, you'd still need live experience in most siuations, but it would help with remembering squad tactics.