Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Game CEO Sees "Gamification" of Work and Military

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the browsing-slashdot-gives-you-rested-xp dept.

GUI 115

An anonymous reader writes "The CEO of Unity discusses 'gamification' — applying game design and technology to real-world applications beyond 'gamespace.' The military is using game design theory for some training programs — not just 'the 3-D, realistic, virtual world experiences, but also the built-in use of frustration and reward.' (And similar training packages were adopted by Unilever, the giant corporation which owns Ben & Jerry's ice cream.) Medical professionals have licensed a 'Google Earth for the human body,' and game design is also being used to build tax software. ('It has to be the most boring field, but I mean that's the point. You can make it slightly challenging and give people little reasons to play these tax tools — beyond, you know, not going to prison!') While some companies conduct team-building exercises using Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter, others use game technology to standardize their in-house employee training programs. The interviewer adds, 'I know I'd feel better about job training if it felt more like killing zombies.'"

cancel ×

115 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

First Earth Battalion (1)

meheler (193628) | more than 4 years ago | (#31742128)

Just sayin..

Unfortunately ... (3, Insightful)

PPH (736903) | more than 4 years ago | (#31742134)

... the military has yet to implement the "Game over. Play again?" feature.

Re:Unfortunately ... (2, Funny)

davester666 (731373) | more than 4 years ago | (#31742628)

Hello? Does Iraq ring any bells?

Re:Unfortunately ... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31743080)

That was more of a sequel than the same game again.

Re:Unfortunately ... (1)

LoRdTAW (99712) | more than 4 years ago | (#31744302)

Actually it was a new game played by GWB because Dan Quail kept being a dick, hitting the player start button during the continue timer and GHWB didn't have a chance to put a quarter in the machine.

Re:Unfortunately ... (1)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 4 years ago | (#31743094)

*woosh*

Re:Unfortunately ... (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 4 years ago | (#31743162)

OK, so the Joint Chiefs of Staff version has it*. So how does the average ground-pounder upgrade?

*Evidently, that version lets you edit the top scores afterwards as well.

Re:Unfortunately ... (1)

davester666 (731373) | more than 4 years ago | (#31743282)

Duh, it's one of the rare games where you start out as a piece on the board, but if you don't get knocked out of the game and you have some intelligence or know the right people, you can advance to actually being a player instead...

Re:Unfortunately ... (1)

h00manist (800926) | more than 4 years ago | (#31744388)

If Iraq is over, who won? If there's no clear answer to that question, I would say it's not over.

Re:Unfortunately ... (1)

davester666 (731373) | more than 4 years ago | (#31744422)

It's still going because both sides still have men left. It ends when one side runs out of them. Have you never played a video game?

Re:Unfortunately ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31745178)

Sadly, the win condition is undefined.

With there bots it's like that but y court martial (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 4 years ago | (#31743362)

With there bots it's like that but if mess up real bad you can get a very real court martial.

Re:Unfortunately ... (1)

Khashishi (775369) | more than 4 years ago | (#31744806)

because the game is never over

Re:Unfortunately ... (1)

imakemusic (1164993) | more than 4 years ago | (#31745622)

We've always been playing Counter Strike against Eurasia.

Re:Unfortunately ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31747316)

We've always been playing Counter Strike against Eastasia.

Typo Fixed.

Re:Unfortunately ... (1)

moj0joj0 (1119977) | more than 4 years ago | (#31744928)

VBS2 has this feature ... The OP obviously was trying to be cute about the very real life and death roles our uniformed citizens face, but the truth is that with proper use the virtual combat arena the soldier increases his situational awareness by between 8 to 14% (Paul Roman, Associate Professor, Royal Military College of Canada). By training his "mental muscle memory" to be aware of sounds and reactions, his chance survival in a very hostile world increases measurably. Studies have shown substantial improvement in pass rates and higher standards throughout the organization. Not only do the teams learn to work together, but many of the usual variables that increase cost and create delays, are removed. Live exercises are expensive, difficult to coordinate and dependent upon weather, time of year and other external variables. The lesson is not to save half the training time in an evolution, it is to take that time to improve the overall standards of your force. http://appliedstudiesgroup.com/ [appliedstudiesgroup.com] shows some numbers on training. Also look at http://battlegroundsims.com/ [battlegroundsims.com] for some interesting information from various sources.

Re:Unfortunately ... (1)

mjwx (966435) | more than 4 years ago | (#31745616)

... the military has yet to implement the "Game over. Play again?" feature.

Yes they have, when the general loses the battle they just send him more money and soldiers. It's been this way since 1965.

Oh, you mean for you.

Re:Unfortunately ... (1)

Nathrael (1251426) | more than 4 years ago | (#31745768)

*points at UAVs*

Partly why it seems to be like game for pilots?... (4, Insightful)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#31742156)

You know, from recent news, those speaking "Come on buddy all you gotta do is pick up a weapon", "Well it's their fault for bringing their kids into a battle", and apparently enjoying it (laughing at the least)

Seriously, some things shouldn't be made closer to computer games.

Re:Partly why it seems to be like game for pilots? (5, Interesting)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#31742424)

Exactly. I think the problem essentially lies in that "gamification" does the opposite of what one should feel during the process.

For example, on April Fools, we hid one of newest coworkers files somewhere on the network that he had access to and told him to go searching for it. He semi-enjoyed the process, but the benefit was that he learned more about the current heirarchy and server structure at our company while doing so. It didn't feel like work because we made it a game. Turned that boring task into a game and it made it fun.

Inversely, like your example, people who would feel the weight of attrocities they commit became completely desensatized to that environment, and in the end have appalling effects. (I don't know for sure if those soldiers played video games, but I wouldn't at all be surprised).

The biggest shame is that its the military who essentially jump-started the whole gamification process. Pilots regularily went through computer simulators long before warfare tactic games were released. So how do you stop the military from doing something they helped invent?

Re:Partly why it seems to be like game for pilots? (1, Insightful)

royallthefourth (1564389) | more than 4 years ago | (#31742574)

You can stop the military by cutting its funding, which will never happen.

The United States will implode long before it takes any steps to fix itself.

Re:Partly why it seems to be like game for pilots? (2, Insightful)

joshier (957448) | more than 4 years ago | (#31742734)

Perhaps the solution is to make war a financially poor choice to pick instead of say, transportation infrastructure? (Trains, electric cars etc)

Re:Partly why it seems to be like game for pilots? (1)

Stormwatch (703920) | more than 4 years ago | (#31742856)

Perhaps the solution is to make war a financially poor choice to pick instead of say, transportation infrastructure?

Unless you are a weapons manufacturer, I'm quite sure war already is a disastrous financial choice.

Re:Partly why it seems to be like game for pilots? (0, Offtopic)

joshier (957448) | more than 4 years ago | (#31743204)

Why is america so hell bent on invading iraq/afganistan then?

Re:Partly why it seems to be like game for pilots? (1)

Lotana (842533) | more than 4 years ago | (#31744190)

I guess (And this is nothing more than a guess) that the weapon manufacturers have great sway in political decisions. Perhaps they made big campaign contributions to today's leaders feel obliged to provide them purpose.

Again, this is not a conspiracy theory. Just an argument of the form:

War is good for weapon makers.
Leaders start war.
Therefore weapon makers influence leaders.

Re:Partly why it seems to be like game for pilots? (1)

Nathrael (1251426) | more than 4 years ago | (#31745782)

Perhaps because Iraq was ruled by a genocidal dictator, because there are loads of terrorist groups operating from within both countries, and securing the future of Israel is not only politically, but also morally right?

Re:Partly why it seems to be like game for pilots? (1)

wish bot (265150) | more than 4 years ago | (#31745936)

Saddam did not tolerate any of the terrorist groups we're preoccupied with. If you want to use that argument, the invasion should have been aimed at Saudi Arabia. Which simply wouldn't happen.

Re:Partly why it seems to be like game for pilots? (1)

Zot Quixote (548930) | more than 4 years ago | (#31747550)

Well, as for Iraq, its worth remembering that Cheney is closely tied to Haliburton. More importantly, Bush and most of the right wing either didn't care about or didn't prioritize the cost. There was the bad blood between Bush and Saddam Hussein, the aspirations to stabilize (using imperial measures) the middle east, and lets face it, making war empowers a president.

Its still amazing that people don't talk more about the lack of WMDs in Iraq. The concerted effort to make the case for going to war with Iraq followed by the revelation that it was just a fabrication is just mind blowing. The cost in blood (both US and Iraqi) is so staggering and yet people seem willing to forget about it. Its pretty obviously a crime and the administration that perpetrated it are pretty clearly war criminals.

Re:Partly why it seems to be like game for pilots? (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#31744730)

The best way to make war a financially poor choice is to be defeated.

You can apply this strategy to your enemies, under the theory that if you defeat them soundly enough it will be a financially poor choice on their part to continue fighting you rather than investing in, say, transportation infrastructure. E.g. WWI.

You can apply this strategy to yourself, under the theory that if people think you’re getting defeated they’ll quickly lose heart and decide that the war isn’t worth it and you should invest instead in, say, transportation infrastructure. E.g. Vietnam.

War is always a financially poor choice, but especially so for the loser. Even when it is a good choice economically, politically, and socially, it is still a financially poor choice.

clone53421 I read something about you on a forums (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31744816)

It said you are nothing but a libellous little scumbag. It pointed to this post here http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1591778&cid=31744792 [slashdot.org] and I read it myself. Appears that it's true, that you're nothing but a scumbag little libelling wuss.

clone, do you even have a CSC or CIS degree? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31745200)

Answer that. I doubt it strongly. You "talk a big game", but you're clearly just another wannabe...

Re:Partly why it seems to be like game for pilots? (1)

astar (203020) | more than 4 years ago | (#31742996)

I have heard that the people who created the current gaming industry got their spurs doing sims for the military. and a big issue for the us military has traditionally been getting the grunts to fire their weapons at real people. and here i think back to my bayonet training.

Re:Partly why it seems to be like game for pilots? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31743144)

I personally work in the military training game design field (with Unity even). The actual training programs are not like a game in the traditional sense. They are very strict simulations focused on education and procedure, not fun.

The games that would cause desensitization are not what this article is referring to, and they do not exist in the military training field that I work in.

Re:Partly why it seems to be like game for pilots? (1)

damburger (981828) | more than 4 years ago | (#31745318)

Nice job not desensitizing Apache pilots...

Re:Partly why it seems to be like game for pilots? (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#31749776)

So far we're talking about one particular Apache gunner. It takes a little bit more than that to legitimately assert that this is routine in U.S. military.

Re:Partly why it seems to be like game for pilots? (1)

Bakkster (1529253) | more than 4 years ago | (#31749472)

Inversely, like your example, people who would feel the weight of attrocities they commit became completely desensatized to that environment, and in the end have appalling effects. (I don't know for sure if those soldiers played video games, but I wouldn't at all be surprised).

Alternatively, couldn't game design be used to better train the pilots to act properly before they get into tense situations? For example, to learn Geneva Convention rules and internalize them, rather than depending on gut feelings of morality.

There's nothing wrong with being desensitized to death, per-se. It's important to ones psyche as a first responder, medical professional, or when your life is threatened and the only way to preserve it is to kill the other person first. It's only when one is desensitized to death and lacks a sense of right from wrong that we get atrocities.

Re:Partly why it seems to be like game for pilots? (1)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 4 years ago | (#31743038)

Seriously, some things shouldn't be made closer to computer games.

Indeed. In fact many think they should be closer to outdoor sports like hunting.

"IT'S COMIN' RIGHT FOR US!!!"

Re:Partly why it seems to be like game for pilots? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31743582)

I think the absolute perfect example of this is Call of Duty. I remember playing the AC130 gunship level in Modern Warfare (the first one) and thinking to myself how scarily accurate this is to real life. I knew I was playing a game and that those little spots of light weren't actually real people I was killing, but I have to admit, it must look like a game to the soldier watching the monitor on the real gunship.

And I think that that's the next phase in technology that the military will take/is already taking: moving the human element out of war. Already we have unmanned combat planes - planes that essentially take the humanity out of warfare. Just point and click on a monitor screen thousands of miles away and you just killed three 'terrorists.' Soon, the U.S. military will hire only gamers for their front-line efforts.

P.S. This is the first step to a completely economic style of warfare. When humans no longer fight and it's just the U.S. robots vs. the Chinese robots, then will war become completely pointless and entirely about economics. I think science fiction predicted another one.

Re:Partly why it seems to be like game for pilots? (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#31743988)

Don't wait too eagerly for the economic scenario in the way you imagine, ours vs. their robots. In case of adversaries capable of waging large scale war based mostly on robots...open war likely won't happen, IMHO. It would be too risky, too destructive (and anyway if it would happen, using human resources eventually would be only, well, economical); yes, another cold war, another MAD. Economic, in a way, in the end.

Periphery wars by proxy will of course still take place, but without great number of newest tech; still relying on troops.

I think I even see which continent might be conductive to that the most in the future...with still booming population that's in large part quite desperate for some time now.

Re:Partly why it seems to be like game for pilots? (1)

wish bot (265150) | more than 4 years ago | (#31745952)

Australian's aren't quite THAT desperate!

Re:Partly why it seems to be like game for pilots? (2, Insightful)

Alex Belits (437) | more than 4 years ago | (#31744474)

P.S. This is the first step to a completely economic style of warfare. When humans no longer fight and it's just the U.S. robots vs. the Chinese robots, then will war become completely pointless and entirely about economics. I think science fiction predicted another one.

No.

Everyone will quickly discover that when both sides have easily replaceable robots and limited amount of resources, defending against enemy robots is less efficient than spending same resources to attack enemy's homeland and civilian population, destroying them faster than enemy destroys you.

We will be lucky if amount of expected destruction (and politicians' understanding of it) will be sufficient for MAD-like situation when even best outcome after the first strike is so much worse than the current situation, no one would want to start such a war. Something tells me that either it won't be true, or politicians won't believe that it's true.

Re:Partly why it seems to be like game for pilots? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31744990)

The point isn't to make things fun or like games. There are concepts applied in games that really should be applied everywhere, but aren't as few understand them. They are suggesting that these concepts are being used in the military and various workplaces. This is a good thing, this is progress.

This is not making war fun at all, if that's all you got out of this you missed the whole point of the article. I'm not denying that certain things shouldn't be fun, I am only stating that this article's subject is not closely related as it may sound from the title.

Re:Partly why it seems to be like game for pilots? (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#31745918)

In the case of military training those "concepts from games" are applied pretty directly. Plus it doesn't matter it's not fun (are all games fun to you?) as long as it's close enough to confuse us internally, to desentitise in real scenario (which is arguably the goal... :/ )

Re:Partly why it seems to be like game for pilots? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31745126)

Go to hell, you whiny liberal shitbag. Muslims all need to die, especially the children. Have you read the koran? Dude, they mean to to wipe you and your kind out. Including your children. Islam needs to be exterminated from the face of the Earth with extreme haste.

Re:Partly why it seems to be like game for pilots? (1)

Keill (920526) | more than 4 years ago | (#31746034)

Using lessons from game theory /= making something into a game.

Game theory is all about psychology - the 'how' and 'why' of games - it's not about 'what' games actually are. (This is a distinction which most people don't seem to appreciate, unfortunately).

Game theory can therefore be applied to almost anything we do that uses similar applications of psychology, which as it happens, is almost 'everything'...

Re:Partly why it seems to be like game for pilots? (1)

bkr1_2k (237627) | more than 4 years ago | (#31747018)

Really? This is no different now than it was in any other war. The lines "How do you shoot women and children?... It's easy, you just don't lead them as much." didn't just come out of thin air or some novelist's mind. People have always treated war that way. It's a coping mechanism for doing the most horrible things a human can do.

Re:Partly why it seems to be like game for pilots? (1)

Aqualung812 (959532) | more than 4 years ago | (#31747220)

You know, from recent news, those speaking "Come on buddy all you gotta do is pick up a weapon", "Well it's their fault for bringing their kids into a battle", and apparently enjoying it (laughing at the least)

I'll take insensitive soldiers who laugh while killing people that they think (incorrectly) are attacking their fellow solders over solders that rape and murder women and children, knowing full well what they're doing. That is the way it has been done for centuries, from vikings to normans to the invasion of Kuwait. Having insensitive solders who think it is a game is one of the less horrible stories from war. The fact that this is "progress" is one of the many reasons war should not be unleashed.

Jews for Nerds! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31742178)

Jews, also known as kikes, hebes, hymies, yids, gold niggers, oven magnets, hook noses, sheenies, swindlers, criminals, "firewood", and Arabs in denial are a subhuman species of reptilian extra-terrestrials and adherents to one of the world's oldest major religions, called "Judaism", otherwise known as "The Worship of Money" or "Eating Arab Babies".

Judaism was the world's first master race theory. The Jew religion teaches that Jews are the Chosen People of God and that there is a sacred mystical quality to Jew DNA. In olden times, Jew prophets would, under the command of YHWH, frequently lead the Jews on genocidal rampages against neighboring populations, and even today Jew leaders often cite Jewish religious ideals to justify their ongoing genocide of sandniggers. Judaism ironically found its mirror-image inversion in the anti-Jew Aryan racialism of the Nazis.

Despite only being 0.22% of the world's population, Jews control 99% of the world's money. Not only do the Jews control the world, but also the media, the banks, the space program, and LiveJournal's porn communities and Gay communities. All Jews possess the following features: an extremely large nose, fake boobs, curly hair that reeks of faggotry, one of those gay hats, a love of coke, a law practice, a roll of money, a small cock, or shitty taste in dental hygiene.

Jews invented both Communism and Capitalism. Karl Marx, of course, was a Jew, which was why he understood money so well, and in fact he was converted to Communism by another Jew, Moses Hess, the actual founder of Zionism, who ghost-wrote Marx's The German Ideology. Capitalism was created when Christian Europeans threw away their morals and decided to embrace Jewish practices like usury (see: John Calvin). Jews were the first group to create a sophisticated banking system, which they used to fund the Crusades in order to pit Christians and Muslims (both adhering to religions derived from and controlled by Jews) against each other to kill as many people as possible in a macabre human sacrifice to YHWH.

The Jew banking system was based on fraud and lies, so when it inevitably collapsed, the Jews just pwned as many people as possible by unleashing the Black Plague on them. Later, Jews economically controlled medieval Venice (the first modern maritime trade empire), and then crypto-Jewish merchants economically controlled the Spanish Empire, including the slave trade. Openly Jewish bankers orchestrated the Dutch Empire and founded Jew Amsterdam (later Jew York). Later the Dutch Jews moved to London because they thought it would be a better base for a global empire, and actually brought a Dutch nobleman, William III, with them, who they installed in a coup d'état (more like Jew d'état, amirite?) as new King of the British Empire. For hundreds of years, Jewish bankers controlled global trade through their bases in Jew York City and London. European colonialism was, through its history, essentially a plot whereby Jews could gain control of gold and diamond mines in poor countries and increase their stranglehold over the global economy.

Jews also enjoy slicing up baby penises for fun, some even enjoy sucking them. See below.

Jews also created Jew search engine Google, so now they can find all Jew information on Internets.

Some suggest that we should use Jews instead of dogs to sniff out large amounts of concealed cash or anything else worth smuggling at airports due to their sensitive Jew noses. Obviously, this is a horrible idea, because the pay is bad, and the dirty Kikes would probably form a union and demand moar money, thus increasing the burden on taxpayers everywhere.

They have it backwards! (4, Funny)

CorporateSuit (1319461) | more than 4 years ago | (#31742184)

I know I'd feel better about job training if it felt more like killing zombies.

Sadly, job training is about CREATING zombies, not about killing them.

Re:They have it backwards! (1)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 4 years ago | (#31743500)

I've wondered though.
Many games manage to get people to do long, boring monotonous tasks for minuscule rewards for incredible portions of their lives- Many MMO's come to mind.
And people do this of their own free will in their time off.

Could a company be structured on something like a game quest system.
Many of the elements are there...
Might people respond better in a company where their work is tracked more like in a game?
I know that particularly slow, dull, mindless tasks that seem to be a part of every job at some point can be soul crushing yet people will do slow, dull, mindless tasks for nothing more than leveling their mage up another level.
Perhaps it's because while it may take weeks of doing the same thing over and over to get that little bar over to the end ,every day that little bar is a little further over.

You could set up some kind of XP-like system where harder tasks get more reward/XP.

Small bit of XP for routine/everyday work.(even some kind of leveling-linked thing to alter how much "XP" you get since you don't want that highly paid guy doing work an intern could be doing)
Lots of XP for unusual/hard tasks or projects.
How do you handle project or task failure? the same way many games handle it- XP loss.
Games already have systems for dealing with party quests for when you need groups to work on a project.

Part of the reason doing some crappy monotonous task is so soul crushing is that at the end you have nothing much to show for it.
It's the people who do the showy stuff who get most of the reward while people who may do just as much useful work but all in small minor things get far less.
If there was some kind of measurement that wasn't purely based on the personal impression that some managers have gotten it might not make people so unhappy to be stuck doing the thankless but necessary jobs.
Work out some kind of relationship between "XP" and raises/promotions (perhaps just raises since promotions might not be so suitable) so that someone working in a call center may feel less like crap because while they got shouted at by 100 people today they got (and can see they got) 500 points closer to their next raise with an additional 400 points bonus for good customer ratings and call times, only 2000 points to go...

You might even be able to work in some kind of skill tree system- visually keep track of people's skills, when they've completed a lot of tasks related to the subject, gained qualifications or otherwise proven themselves qualified in an area which could be used to keep track of what tasks they are considered qualified for.

It wouldn't work at all I think trying to shoe-horn it into an existing structure but perhaps in a new and slightly more free-form organization you might be able to make something workable.

Some of these things I've sort of seen seen in companies(keeping track of qualifications).

It's probably all madness and foolishness anyway...

Re:They have it backwards! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31746910)

Mod parent up as BRAINZZZZZZZ

Failure to understand the problem space (3, Insightful)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#31742192)

'I know I'd feel better about job training if it felt more like killing zombies.'

I know I'd feel better about customer service if it allowed for ganking newbs.

GRAW as teambuilding? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31742208)

I like this. My play in Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter consisted of strategically ordering my teammates out into the line of fire, so I could pick off the enemy with his back turned. My teammates were too dumb for anything else - ordering them to keep cover was like ordering a pedophile clown not to chase after the ice cream truck.

At this point, the analogy breaks down (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#31742314)

The smart pedophile clowns are actually driving the ice cream truck.

I see it coming... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31742366)

Earning medals for working more, having a scorboard for workers.... we will end up with a very boring korean mmo, a paradise for gold farmers.

And you end up with : (4, Informative)

Ralph Spoilsport (673134) | more than 4 years ago | (#31742414)

Re:And you end up with : (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31743070)

Hallelujah. War shouldn't be "fun".

Re:And you end up with : (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31743186)

well, given that there was a unit in the area having recently taken fire from rpg's and ak-47s, there were definitely at least two individuals in that group that were clearly carrying automatic rifles of some sort, and two that were carrying objects that couldn't really be clearly identified.... and then they go poking around corners acting like insurgents... well, i can't imagine i would have handled the situation any differently, especially given the heat and urgency of the situation, which the average viewer of that video has no way to comprehend.

And the pilot probably didn't have little labels on his display saying that the RPG-like object in Namir's hand was "Namir's Camera" when Namir was poking it around the corner looking for targets.

Furthermore, even if they had correctly identified the object in his hand as a camera... there were still weapons in the group, and they were still acting like insurgents. just because one of the insurgents wanted to take pictures for propaganda doesn't make the entire group non-combatants...

he was in a warzone and knew the risks, it's a tragedy that he chose to act like an insurgent in a time and place where apaches happened to be looking for insurgents, but don't blame the pilots for doing their jobs.

Re:And you end up with : (5, Informative)

damburger (981828) | more than 4 years ago | (#31745330)

They were walking down a road, you inhuman prick. They weren't "acting like insurgents" and there is no way that camera could be mistaken for an RPG. Look at some fucking pictures. Even if the Apache crew were as idiotic as you are, that still doesn't excuse them gleefully opening up on a van which had just stopped to help the wounded, and had two children in it. Go to hell, you bloodthirsty redneck apologist.

Re:And you end up with : (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31745734)

If they were not insurgents how do you explain them being in Iraq?

Re:And you end up with : (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31746888)

How many times do people have to say this: a battlefield is no place for children!

Re:And you end up with : (1)

damburger (981828) | more than 4 years ago | (#31749458)

Its their home, as well as a battlefield. But of course you forgot that; all you see of it is the video-game version of Iraq shown from a helicopter or a tank.

Re:And you end up with : (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31743190)

You might want to link to a more credible site in future, the National Enquirer perhaps.

Re:And you end up with : (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31744254)

How about this [slashdot.org] ?

Re:And you end up with : (0, Flamebait)

Kral_Blbec (1201285) | more than 4 years ago | (#31743762)

If you actually watch the video, its pretty hard to find a lot of fault with the heli crew. There were known combatants in the area and the way the guys on the ground were huddled at the corner looked exactly like preparations to fire what looked exactly like an RPG. They requested permission to engage (both times) and ceased fire when the targets were down. They did just what they were trained and expected to do. Its easy to sit back and blame them for a bad shoot, but in their position you would (or should) likely have done the same thing. Had that really been an RPG and they didn't fire then there would just be a video on WikiLeaks about how the army watched a couple insurgents launch and attack and sat back doing nothing, and blaming them for what ever deaths had happened as a result.

Its sad that some people died as a result, but a large part of the fault lies with them. They were doing things they should not have been doing in an area they should not have been doing it at, and they likely knew it. The good Samaritan with his kids was well intentioned, but didn't think it through either. There obviously had just been an attack and with two helicopters flying around, it doesn't take much to figure that the place is still being watched. Not that he deserved to die because of it, but it was unwise to put himself and his family in that position.

Re:And you end up with : (2, Informative)

Ralph Spoilsport (673134) | more than 4 years ago | (#31744622)

If you actually watch the video, its pretty hard to find a lot of fault with the heli crew.

Wrong. Game Over. Read the transcript.

It was clearly Murder. [collateralmurder.com]

Re:And you end up with : (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 4 years ago | (#31744970)

Are you serious?

What was the justification for firing on the clearly unarmed people and vehicle (note no mention of a weapon in the chatter at all, certainly none when requesting permission to kill 'em) assisting a clearly unarmed (as evidenced by them not shooting him as he lay on the ground wounded earlier) wounded person?

Re:And you end up with : (1)

Kral_Blbec (1201285) | more than 4 years ago | (#31747710)

They were not clearly unarmed. They were carrying weapons, including what appeared (and was being handled like) an RPG. The fact that you claim no weapons were mentioned in the chatter proves you didn't watch it, as there was frequent mention.

Re:And you end up with : (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 4 years ago | (#31748102)

No, the people they shot at initially did that.

The people in the damn car and the wounded guy clearly didn't, and I already gave the evidence from the words of the gun operator in the chatter in the post above you clearly didn't bother reading.

Re:And you end up with : (3, Insightful)

Tom (822) | more than 4 years ago | (#31746986)

If you actually watch the video, its pretty hard to find a lot of fault with the heli crew.

While I don't jump on the sensationalism either, this is too far off the other end.

There was a guy apparently carrying something at his side. I've not done any slow-motion or such, just watched the video, so I figure I had the same view as the guys in the heli. I would not have said that that's a weapon. However, did you notice how the communication went? It went straight from "could be a gun" to "we have individuals with weapons" to "AK47". At that point, someone in the chain of command should've said "uh, you're looking through a shitty b/w camera and you can make out the model of the gun?" and wondered whether things on the ground really are that way. What should have happened - and didn't - was confirmation. "Are you certain they have guns?"

I didn't see anything that was even close to looking like an RPG, either. Not to mention that an RPG is an unguided weapon and pretty much sucks against moving helicopters (if they were hovering, that'd be another story).

The good Samaritan with his kids was well intentioned, but didn't think it through either. There obviously had just been an attack and with two helicopters flying around, it doesn't take much to figure that the place is still being watched. Not that he deserved to die because of it, but it was unwise to put himself and his family in that position.

Yes, that's easy to say from 20,000 miles away. In that situation, to him on the ground, things may have looked different. We'll never know. He may have thought there was a shooting, and the helicopters have secured the area. It had been a few minutes since the last shot had been fired.

And, once again, there was - to me - no reason in the video why they opened fire on the bus. Even before someone had left the car, the chatter was already "they're going to recover bodies and weapons". Then they proceeded to load the injured guy into the car, and at that point the helicopters opened fire. No weapon in sight.

Yes "don't bring your children to battle" is a nice saying. Except that this happened inside a city. You know, the place where civilians happen to live.

Now, I can understand that you'd rather stand on trial for shooting an innocent civilian than discovering too late that he's not and be killed yourself. Perfectly understandable, human, everything.

What I don't get is:
a) the total lack of critical thinking. Even when everyone was dead and one wounded guy tried to crawl away, it appeared that the gunner actually wanted him to reach for a weapon so he could shoot him. Likewise, at no point did anyone in the chatter wonder whether the guys in the bus could be just civilians trying to bring someone who is seriously injured to the nearest hospital.

b) the lack of protocol and procedure in the chain of command to deal with situations like this. After years of operating in urban warfare, they should've done some homework. A lot of things you and I carry with us when we're shopping, or moving, or just bringing some stuff to a friend, can look like a weapon from far away. A lot of perfectly innocent behaviour can look not so from far away. Aparently, the official non-policy is "whatever the guys at the scene think they see, that's gotta be it".

c) why the cover-up? We all hate it when we make mistakes, but covering it up only raises the suspicion that you have something to hide.

Re:And you end up with : (1)

Kral_Blbec (1201285) | more than 4 years ago | (#31747774)

They fired on the van because it was presumed to be insurgents trying to escape with a comrade. That would have been a valid shoot, notice how they requested permission to fire. The guy begging permission to shoot wasnt because he wanted to kill someone, but because the targets were escaping and he had little time left.
Also, let me point out that after arriving on the scene they DID find weapons with the group, just not as many as they had expected. The model is easy to assume because what else would they be carrying? The AK47 is the bread and butter of many millitary groups (legit and terrorist) around the world. They weren't going to have a HK G36 or anything...
They also didn't have to be firing at the heli. There are plenty of civilian targets around. When they were peaking around the corner it looks very much like they had something long and tubular, like an RPG. We dont know what was down the street, it might have been a school or playground for all we know. Thats just as good a target for some people.

Re:And you end up with : (1)

Kral_Blbec (1201285) | more than 4 years ago | (#31747818)

PS. They were shot with a 30mm cannon. Those make a much different hole than a m16 or ak47 and anyone who saw it should have known that it was made by a MUCH bigger gun. That leaves the heli to have been the shooters. Not smart to put yourself between a heli and its targets, even if you are only trying to bring it to the nearest hospital.
They HAD followed procedure. They identified the targets (although incorrectly) and requested permission from command. You want to send a messenger down in person to check out every target? Not possible. It wasn't so much what they were carrying, but how they were handling it AND HOW THEY WERE ACTING AT THE CORNER that brought them under so much suspicion. Had they not been pointing something around the corner, they would have likely been left alone. Do you poke your grocery bag around corners?

Do we really need to blame it on games? (2, Insightful)

Moraelin (679338) | more than 4 years ago | (#31746046)

That they're treating civilians as targets is clear, but where do they say it's like in a game?

It seems to me like there are more effective ways to dehumanize opponents and convince someone that the only good arabs are dead arabs, without video games. You just need half the country and their idiot ministers bleating about how Islam is the work of the devil, they're all terrorists, they're all hell-bent on destroying Christianity and the West, they all hate us for our freedoms, they all want Sharia courts in Washington DC, they're all child rapists like <insert isolated tribal incident<, they all want to be suicide bombers when they grow up, etc. And attribute to them some ways of thinking born out of the pure ignorance of the idiot minister or fundie banner-waver ascribing it to them. (E.g., if I see one more rationale which basically takes it as a fact that Muhammad is like Jesus for the Muslims, I might barf.) And how you might be letting some good people burn in Hell if you let the Islam spread.

And then give them guns with references to bible verses inscribed on their optics. (It actually happened.) And have idiot fundie sergeants introduce it as "the Jesus gun" in training.

With a sizable chunk of America being in that state of mind, where every single Muslim is a dangerous enemy, not by virtue of actually shooting at anyone or even having a gun or anything, but just by virtue of being Muslim... do we really need video games to explain why it was inevitable that someone just lets it rip on full auto and lets God sort them?

And don't get me wrong, I'm not saying _all_ America is like that. I know that a lot are very embarassed by their bleating fundie brethren. But when you have some tens of thousands of soldiers over there, if even one in ten is fighting a Crusade in his own mind, and is more concerned about his being elligible for the Rapture that'll come any day now than about peace in a few years, this kind of thing is pretty much doomed to happen.

It's sorta like for a high score all right, but not the video game kinda high score. More like about the kind that'll get some idiot in the top scores list in Heaven.

Halo (1)

cosm (1072588) | more than 4 years ago | (#31742482)

Does this mean the frequency of interoffice teabagging will be on the rise?

Re:Halo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31742966)

Yes. Republicans on the giving end, Democrats on the receiving.

I don't know which one is worse.

Model != Game (1)

Goblez (928516) | more than 4 years ago | (#31742572)

If modeling things using a decent interface constitutes gaming, though it does not.
"Game design can be such a pure interaction. I mean, many games are just interaction."
What a lame quote. Office is a great game, think of all the interaction!

Well. if a game CEO says so. (2, Funny)

drolli (522659) | more than 4 years ago | (#31742624)

We should also teach physics in first Person shooters. With Schroedinger Zombie-cats which are only half alive and Maxwell deamons. Well. Maybe not.

Re:Well. if a game CEO says so. (1)

Zixaphir (845917) | more than 4 years ago | (#31742990)

I, for one, nominate the Hellsing Manga for plot fodder.

Wow. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31742648)

A little late for April Fools, don't you think?

In Other news... (1)

mal3 (59208) | more than 4 years ago | (#31742880)

Man with hammer sees nail.

* 1 UP * (1)

ipquickly (1562169) | more than 4 years ago | (#31743084)

I found a 1 UP mushroom at work.

It didn't taste that good.

In fact, I don't feel so good right now.

Re:* 1 UP * (1)

dakameleon (1126377) | more than 4 years ago | (#31743682)

That may have been a poison mushroom [mariowiki.com] . Been hanging around the lost levels at work?

Games and the IRS?? (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 4 years ago | (#31743338)

I think it's called a irs audit and it can cost you A Lot quarters to play.

Gamification is not a word (1)

mstrcat (517519) | more than 4 years ago | (#31743446)

Gamification is not a word. More importantly, depending if you use a hard 'a' sound (as in play) or a soft one (as in plan), you get a completely different view of what it's actually supposed to mean. Personally I like the soft a version instead.

PS If you don't understand, read more 40's detective fiction and pay attention to the slang.

Re:Gamification is not a word (2, Funny)

Cryacin (657549) | more than 4 years ago | (#31744008)

Gamification is a perfectly cromulent word. It embiggens your intellect.

VIE's: Virtual Immersive Environments (1)

BlueBoxSW.com (745855) | more than 4 years ago | (#31743658)

That's the new buzzword in training. VIE's.

However this has been going on for a long time.

The first real problem is that you need to be working with objectives that translate into games and simulations.

Building a game or simulation when the objectives don't fit creates horrible, horrible games.

The second real problem is the proprietary nature of the existing toolsets.

I predict with browser-based 3d (web3D/canvas) along with easy client-server communication (jQuery/webSockets/json), the floodgates will open.

Ender Wiggins is that you? (1)

grapeape (137008) | more than 4 years ago | (#31743698)

Thats a scary thought...better be careful about who we get to play Peter.

I wrote about this a year ago... (1)

peterofoz (1038508) | more than 4 years ago | (#31743958)

http://slashdot.org/~peterofoz/journal/230553 [slashdot.org] I'm frustrated. Why can't business apps be designed to have GUI's that are as slick and clean as a game? One issue to overcome is the screen real estate taken up by graphics and chrome. Also, business apps design should include a configuration management tool; hand editing web.config files should be in the past.

Re:I wrote about this a year ago... (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#31744788)

At least partly to blame is the legacy systems that force you to add new systems that are compatible with the old, or which can easily transition from the old to the new... preferably without your staff having to learn a totally different system.

The compatibility issue limits you. The transition limits you. The staff really limits you.

clone53421 do you have a degree in CSC or even CIS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31745176)

Answer that. I doubt it strongly. You "talk a big game", but you're clearly just another wannabe.

Re:I wrote about this a year ago... (1)

peterofoz (1038508) | more than 4 years ago | (#31745158)

I've been following some Game UI's. So far I like Facebook Mafia Wars as its all HTML/Javascript and good but simple artwork. The others have been either custom graphics/Java work or Flash based.

Its been interesting to watch the incremental improvements as they streamline the game work flow. It's all point and click so I'm not sure how well this would translate to a business UI.

Now i just need a paying customer to fund some great UI development for an internal business app. But it has to be lean enough to work in a WAN and support at least 500 users from a single web server front end.

The closest I've seen to a slick corporate UI all in Cold Fusion is at a medical services company that reinvented itself in 2000 by snapping up lots of dot com developers.

Unethical (1)

pizza_milkshake (580452) | more than 4 years ago | (#31744070)

It's all unethical. Until the other guys are robots too, then it's OK. Until scientists invent robot with souls; then it'll go back to being unethical.

Re:Unethical (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31744446)

They've had remote, push-button death since the flintlock.

Bad timing (1)

Elwood P Dowd (16933) | more than 4 years ago | (#31744224)

That wikileaks video has apparently been a bigger PR disaster for video games more than the US fucking military.

So much so that when SLASHDOT USERS see that the military might use video games, their concern is for the corrupting influence of video games rather than the corrupting influence of war.

The behavior of those pilots does not indicate the influence of video games but rather policy.

Men are capable of evil fucking things, with or without the assistance of video games, ak-47s, or predator drones. Some of those are more enabling than others.

The real point this PR roadkill is trying to make is that video games use techniques that would be useful in other contexts. Obviously this is true and fucking harmless, on its face. Unfortunately, his example is that they would be useful for helping to implementing corporate and military policy.

Gaming as Work (1)

scoove (71173) | more than 4 years ago | (#31744936)

Philosopher and media theorist McKenzie "Ken" Wark addresses a large aspect of this issue of gaming as subversive work and mis(re)appropriation of labor in gamespace to the application of capitalist/vectoralist interests in his recent work Gamer Theory [futureofthebook.org] (online interactive book).

The Video Game Monologues [youtube.com] project does a reasonable job explaining some of this, put to animation.

The other gamification: (1)

Tei (520358) | more than 4 years ago | (#31745434)

This is not the gamification that seems in vogue betwen game dev's.

The one that is too popular, is the use of "MMORPG" adiction to everything. Give tiny rewards for completing boring task, to train people to LIKE to grind. And it works. Imagine a framework around your work, where you get and complete quest (task) and get XP for these quest, and level up, and stuff like that.

Toys movie? (1)

alexandre (53) | more than 4 years ago | (#31746648)

Anyone remember the movie Toys [imdb.com] ?

And schools? (1)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 4 years ago | (#31749298)

"Typing of the Dead" anyone?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>