Videogames form of practice?

[killergopher]

I am pretty good at PC FPS's in fact I gave played CS:Source and COD4 on a tournament level. Just about everything I learned about how to lay those carry's over to paint ball. Probably one of the biggest lessons I learned was to compromise your position by firing at a target when you don't have a clear shot, knowing the terrain/map your playing on and the importance of communication. And there are a million other lessons a video game can teach you that will carry over to paintball. In fact I think I am going to go lay some COD4. I will see everyone on Sunday.

[MissFire]

As a mother of two big kids (ages 19 & 21) and one ex-kid , I've witnessed quite a lot regarding the topic of video games vs. the real thing. While they were growing up, every sport they played (Softball, Baseball, Soccer, Roller Hockey and Ice Hockey), they had to have the video game to go with it. My ex-kid (ex-husband) was a HUGE role-play gamer (that d**n Everquest didn't help our marriage) and we've gone through every system from the Commodore 64 on up to the current X-Box 360. Atari, Sega, Genesis, Ninetendo, Playstation, X-Box...we had them all.

From what I saw, there was definitely a big difference between those on the team that played video games and those that didnt. The ones that played the video games were much more aggressive, but those that didn't usually were more careful with their strategies. They took more time to think things through. Depending on the sport and position, there is an advantage to both.

When it comes to this topic, some sports will differ from others, but I strongly support both sides to this question. In video games, you can choose your own game, but when out on the field, you can't ignore the real life physics in favor of videogame logic. So in my opinion, I'd say "play it up" on and off the field.

Besides, I like looking at Wes' bruises! ;D

C1

[xturdyx]

I don't see it as aggressive. I see it as confidence.

[MacGyver]

here are some excerpts from a study made by the marines about training on video game type simulators and training hands on in CQB:

While the experimental group numerically
outperformed the control group on the live fire
tactical evaluation, no statistical differences
between the control group and experimental group
were found in terms of objective performance in the
live exercise.
Though self-assessment evaluations did
result in statistically significant results for situational
awareness, intra-team communications, tactical
awareness, and movement techniques,
these same four measures did not show a statistical difference
in the objective scores between the control and
the experimental group. Clearly, substitution of a
portion of field training with virtual training did not
harm the performance of Marines either objectively
or subjectively when compared to the performance
of Marines receiving regular field training alone.
At the same time, the virtual training treatment did
not demonstrate a statistically significant positive
improvement in the objective performance measures.

Because of an issue with collision detection in the game, the Marines had a difficult time stacking before entering rooms
that were to be cleared. The leg bump is done by the
number-two man in the stack, where he uses his knee
to bump the lead Marine in his hamstring to signify
that the team is ready to execute. The number-two
man normally also announces the number of Marines
in the stack so that the lead Marine knows what tactics
are to be employed (tactical responsibilities inside the
room to be cleared are dependent on the number of
Marines entering). Without the physical bump, the
verbal announcement of “You’ve got two!” or “You’ve
got three!” was the only way to replicate this action.
Given the inconsistency between indicating team
readiness in the game by using a verbal announcement
versus using the leg bump in real life, the potential
for negative training exists.

The CQB implementation of the room clearing operations, on
the other hand, tends to deal more with execution of
well-honed techniques involving physical interaction
with other people as well as the environment. The
traditional mouse interface, even when modified for
the task, did not improve performance as hoped.

these excerpts are from a 9 page report I hope you find this information useful

[phxscorpion]

what is the original print date on the source material? its probably pre-2000! i've said it once i'll say it again, u cannot succed with outdated soft ware. . . . the programs i have used wont allow you to "leg bump" but the ability to stack up on entry ways in Rainbow 6 Vegas 1 & 2 is second to none! every1 skeptical about the reality of these games needs to check into some of the videos on the web!

[MacGyver]

the date was last year
JDMS, Volume 4, Issue 1, January 2007 Pages 55–63
© 2007 The Society for Modeling and Simulation International

[phxscorpion]

well then that tells me that they used the lowest bid for the contract on their software and hardware. the horse power microsoft and sony are pumping out at consumer pricing is truely amazing. we r talkin photorealistic grafics, true life motion physics, real time damage modeling, intelligent A.I. plus outstanding geometry (collision) detection. Of course you wont have all this if u run it on 10 year old hardware. To put an end to this subject . . . . . I think what "some" people are trying to say is that video games are for children. . . which is such a 1980's way of thinking that it makes my stomach turn! Games with an "M" on them r targeted towards "GROWN MEN", they have sex,drugs,alcohol,violence and other forms of moral dilema's that only "ADULTS" may partake in. If they were only for children then why are the games rated M a billion dollar baby with 18-40 year olds? In a market that out sells movie theatres & video rentals 10 to 1 I think the proof is "IN THE PUDDING"! NUFF SAID ! ! ! Im done with this arguement, thankfully i am an open minded individual who saves judgement until I c proof to the contrary!!!

[killergopher]

Both sides are right and yet both sides are wrong. Video games offer an advantage in training because you can set up specific situations and train on them over and over and have a replay button at your disposal to review, scrutinize, and learn from your actions. This is something you can not do in real life training, their is no rewind, stop, zoom, and slow mo button on real life so it can make certain aspects of the training process difficult if not impossible. However video games do not and can not completely make up for the real thing, they cant make it 90 degrees with a hot sun beating down on you, they cant make uneven rocky terrain to walk on. They don't give you an actual gun to hold and fire. So whats the point of my statement? You need both, video games to try new strategies and squad load outs, and real life to know what you would do if you were the one holding the gun and dishing out the orders not some pixels on a screen.

[MissFire]

So we are cutting corners on military training just so we can boost their confidence? Poor children...

C1

[Frosty]

can we build a paintball simulator or do we just need to put xbox joysticks on our guns ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

[jimbarrows]

Remember the old Army Training addage: You are going to fight the way you train, so train the way you're going to fight.
Simulations only go so far, and both Kurt and Rob are right....