this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2024
531 points (98.9% liked)
NonCredibleDefense
6450 readers
432 users here now
A community for your defence shitposting needs
Rules
1. Be nice
Do not make personal attacks against each other, call for violence against anyone, or intentionally antagonize people in the comment sections.
2. Explain incorrect defense articles and takes
If you want to post a non-credible take, it must be from a "credible" source (news article, politician, or military leader) and must have a comment laying out exactly why it's non-credible. Random twitter and YouTube comments belong in the Low Hanging Fruit thread.
3. Content must be relevant
Posts must be about military hardware or international security/defense. This is not the page to fawn over Youtube personalities, simp over political leaders, or discuss other areas of international policy.
4. No racism / hatespeech
No slurs. No advocating for the killing of people or insulting them based on physical, religious, or ideological traits.
5. No politics
We don't care if you're Republican, Democrat, Socialist, Stalinist, Baathist, or some other hot mess. Leave it at the door. This applies to comments as well.
6. No seriousposting
We don't want your uncut war footage, fundraisers, credible news articles, or other such things. The world is already serious enough as it is.
7. No classified material
Classified information is off limits regardless of how "open source" and "easy to find" it is.
8. Source artwork
If you use somebody's art in your post or as your post, the OP must provide a direct link to the art's source in the comment section, or a good reason why this was not possible (such as the artist deleting their account). The source should be a place that the artist themselves uploaded the art. A booru is not a source. A watermark is not a source.
9. No low-effort posts
No egregiously low effort posts. These include Social media screenshots with a title punchline / no punchline, recent (after the start of the Ukraine War) reposts, simple reaction & template memes, and images with the punchline in the title. Put these in weekly Low effort thread instead.
10. Don't get us banned
No brigading or harassing other communities. Do not post memes with a "haha people that I hate died… haha" punchline or violating the sh.itjust.works rules (below). This includes content illegal in Canada.
Join our Matrix chatroom
Other communities you may be interested in
- !militaryporn@lemmy.world
- !forgottenweapons@lemmy.world
- !combatvideos@sh.itjust.works
- !militarymoe@ani.social
Banner made by u/Fertility18
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Where's the FPS game?
Been done, and didn’t work. Players complained of “Slow weapon upgrades” and “No character progression” and was received poorly, needs more gritty realism.
Or explosions
What's funny is I know someone with like, 2000 hours in that game. And it just happened to be his favorite fps, nothing to do with the army propaganda.
It’s honestly a solid lane shooter FPS, but it falls flat of the Battlefield killer it could have been. Enough realism and no respawns to make you treat it seriously, but it’s also not ArmA levels of “welp, time to respawn and drive/walk to the objective for 15 minutes”
Plus doing the training unlocks the squad role slots for online play, get that season pass shit outta my face
And the training consisted of sitting in a classroom, then taking a paper test and scoring well enough, if not more. I loved AA 2
It's well balanced, has great level design, and the game mood is serious enough that the scenarios and matches are taken serious too. It's rare to have someone run in guns blazing for more than a couple matches. Overall, it has a fun gameplay loop that takes itself seriously without being over the top. They know it's a recruiting tool, so it has to be good enough that folks want to play.
AA2 and AA3 were fucking fantastic, despite AA3 becoming early access abandonware within like ten seconds of its release. AA4 was awful.
I heard they had to limit people at West Point from playing as all the cadets were learning to shoot first and ask questions later.
Some units did use it as a training tool, but only in conjunction with actual classes and closed matches. So wacky game stuff was very much not allowed. You had to move and fight as a team. For what it's worth, when I organized some guys to work like a real fireteam the game massively rewarded it in public matches.
For shoot/don't shoot training without a designated training area (the infamous back 40 of most bases) the Army uses a laser system with compressed air guns. A video plays and you're expected to interact with it like you would in real life. So there's a trainer there noting the exact moment you went lethal, if you did the correct de-escalation before hand, and your marksmanship after you start shooting. The scenarios also have branching possibilities so you can't just recognize which one is which. You actually have to work the problem and hope for the best.
From my experience trying it out they should have made sure no-one had any grenades.
They made the most realistic game and people complained it wasn't real enough. I will never forget that. And the slow weapon upgrades was because there weren't any originally. Then you had to complete a stealth mission with one possible path that you had to crawl through for an hour. And the weapons weren't available on every map.
In many ways the game proved we didn't want super realism. We wanted fake realism with tactical fashion.
I enjoy a good FPS, even military sim styles like Battlefield, but that also why I wouldn't join the real military. I enjoy it as a game, a fantasy where none actually get physical injured and everyone goes home at the end of a battle. I've seen enough "video game" violence to know I have zero desire to see the real thing or do such things to other people.
Battlefield isn't a milsim. Aside from the few milsim communites that have existed over the years and mods like Project Reality, Battlefield games were never really the most realistc deptiction of warfare.
Isn't that their point?
Yes, it is
True, it isn't a milsim. It's a game in the milsim style, as I said. And not being a very realistic depiction is explicitly why I enjoy the fantasy of the game, but not the reality of warfare.
Think it belongs before or after the Dodge Charger?
Before. America’s Army dropped for the PC in ‘02. I feel like grunts were getting chargers from like 06-current. Could be wrong though