In Huntemann and Payne's article, they describe how much the military uses the most modern technology - including using games to reduce the cost and make the virtual situation more realistic.
Before I read this article, I did experienced how much a game can be complicated, by Falcon 4.0, which was released about 10 or more years ago (according to this article, it was released on 1998) and how I gave up understanding about 450 pages of material (part of reason was that it was also in English). It was later on that I realized this was also used as a simulation tool for air force.
In this article's main example, which is 'America's Army', brings up an interesting side of economics, that game developers are feeling better about the game because 'Army is also in the part of the project and thus they share the cost'. in return, they were supposed to insert certain values that Army desired, as I assume, patriotism and certain people as their enemy.
However, I have my problem here. In this article, they were not able to tell us how much it exactly increased the enrollment or how much it increased the efficiency of the training. Without specific numbers, those claims cannot earn a status of being nothing more than a claim, and it really lacks evidences.
How much do you think the actual enrollment has increased due to this game? do you think it's a waste money?
I don't the enrollment has increased much... People play the game mostly due to "love at first glance" or peer pressure.
ReplyDeleteI'm not certainly sure if the enrollment has increased a lot, but I'm sure the war games had some impacts on the players.I don't think it is waste of money because now young people are moving away from television to video games. In order to advertise the military service to young people, they also have to move onto video game media. Thus, I don't think it is waste of money.
ReplyDelete