Army Recruitment Going Interactive

June 16, 2008 -

Brand Week reports that the US Army plans to wage a game-oriented attack on subpar recruiting efforts.

In August the Army will unveil the first of a new wave of recruitment centers in which prospective soldiers will play America's Army and fly missions in Apache and Blackhawk helicopter sims.

Apple's retail stores and venues like the ESPN Zone are said to be the inspirations behind the new approach. Army official Edward Walters told Brand Week:

In the past we've focused on traditional media vehicles. [But] the millennial generation is used to engaging in interactive assets and we need to adapt to them.
 

From the description, the days of handing would-be recruits a brochure will soon be over:

The first new recruitment center is designed to be less intimidating and more "like walking into a NASA center," said Walters. It will consist of three large simulators with full-scale mock-ups of Army equipment and wrap-around 270-degree video screens...

 

The Apache simulator allows a pilot and co-pilot to experience the aircraft and its weapons systems. The Black Hawk helicopter simulator provides four door gunner positions. And, the armored HMMWV vehicle simulator has positions for a driver and several gunners. The centers also will include an area where visitors can compete in America's Army, a videogame...
 

Via: Gizmodo


Comments

Re: Army Recruitment Going Interactive

The Navy's been on the nerd bandwagon for a while. They've got ads voiced by the same guy who voices Optimus Prime, ads hyping their space launches, and ads hyping their remote death robots. As it is they're a Gundam away from me signing up.

Re: Army Recruitment Going Interactive

Granted, it takes a lot more nerds to run a Nuclear-powered ship than to drive an Abrams.  The Army still needs its nerds, but they want them to wind up in the Signal Corps fixing computers and networks rather than running around in the Infantry.

---------------------------------

So speak I, some random guy.

Re: Army Recruitment Going Interactive

While true (as I was one of those Signal Corps nerds fixing computers and networks), it really isn't a good idea to judge based off of percentage points. If 20% of the Navy needs to be "nerds", while only 5% of the Army needs to be "nerds", the Army could still easily have more "nerds", simply because the Army has significantly more personnel than the Navy -- it just is the nature of the beast, and the differences in the kind of warfare being done by both branches.

But I digress...

"I'm not responcabel fer my comuter's spleling errnors." -- Xlorep DarkHelm

"I'm stel not responcabel fer my comuter's spleling errnors." -- Xlorep DarkHelm

Re: Army Recruitment Going Interactive

True, but the recruiting tools the Army's using are more set up recruit people for combat arms and close air supprt rather than rear echelon jobs.  Granted, I don't think anyone wants to play a SINCGARS simnulator, although there might be one in the Humvee, so it's a little hard to advertise Commo jobs.

---------------------------------

So speak I, some random guy.

Re: Army Recruitment Going Interactive

True enough. The Army does have a lot of jobs that don't really need much brain power to do. Heck, even the Signal Corps has its "Wire Dogs"... where the entire job is to pull wire from the back of a moving vehicle and bury it in the ground.

"I'm not responcabel fer my comuter's spleling errnors." -- Xlorep DarkHelm

"I'm stel not responcabel fer my comuter's spleling errnors." -- Xlorep DarkHelm

Re: Army Recruitment Going Interactive

Oh yeah, THIS isn't going cause controversy.

I'm actually a little surprised the army would go this route right now.  With an unpopular war going on and the whole issue surrounding the  banning of recruiter in Berkely and other locations etc.  It seems like the army would want to lay low a little rather than going the videogame route again which will just cause the "brainwashing our children!" people to rise up and scream.

Re: Army Recruitment Going Interactive

No, it won't, because you probably won't die if you're shot down or hit an IED.

Re: Army Recruitment Going Interactive

Eh, I don't think America’s army was worth it honestly, I think they would be better off focusing on making their simulators as interesting as possible.

Everyone joins the Air force to be a pilot or a Gunship crewman, and then ends up being a base guard.

Everyone joins the army to be a tank commander or an apache pilot.

 

You get people mostly for the glamorous jobs, so make the glamorous jobs look damn good.

 

Re: Army Recruitment Going Interactive

Actually, only a very few join the Army to be a tank commander or apache pilot, or join the Air Force to be a pilot or Gunship crewman (which actually is an Army job). Most people join the military to get out of difficult life situations (drug addicted family/friends, lack of jobs in home town, etc.), many also join to get the college money in order to better themselves. There is a very slim few who see the job as glamorous, and those ones usually don't make it through Basic Combat Training/Boot Camp.

Despite what people are demonizing the recruiters for here, it just doesn't show up as true when surveying people who are in the military, and why they joined. Most don't even care for being in too much, they see it as a stepping stone, a means-to-an-end to have a better chance to succeed in the "real world". There are a few who really anjoy the military, and they get promoted quite high because of it. But anyone with delusions of grandeur often finds him or herself really in the wrong place, and that person finds a way out pretty darned quick.

"I'm not responcabel fer my comuter's spleling errnors." -- Xlorep DarkHelm

"I'm stel not responcabel fer my comuter's spleling errnors." -- Xlorep DarkHelm

Re: Army Recruitment Going Interactive

Im surprised it took them so long with the simulators.

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Will an M rating hurt Batman: Arkham Knight's sales?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
ZippyDSMleeEh still rather subjective… the haters would be better off going after teen and beauty rags and magazines than fiction, fiction follows reality and going after fiction tends to turn into a bullying fest’s… plus its fiction its unrealistic to start with….02/27/2015 - 1:10am
MechaTama31That's a pretty difficult anatomy to break.02/26/2015 - 11:09pm
MechaTama31"the way her animations repeatedly break her anatomy" <-- I'm sorry, but we are talking here about the woman who can roll up into a little ball and live to tell the tale, yes? ;)02/26/2015 - 11:09pm
Andrew EisenAs far as examples that could be culled from female game characters though, that one's pretty mild.02/26/2015 - 9:11pm
Andrew EisenNot as much the heels or the suit in and of themselves but certainly the way her animations repeatedly break her anatomy to show off her lady bits.02/26/2015 - 9:10pm
E. Zachary KnightWell, Samus's heels are certainly impracticable, but I wouldn't really call her Zero suit objectified. I don't really feel that the new Lara Croft is objectified either, but that is my subjective opinion.02/26/2015 - 9:08pm
Andrew EisenTomb Raider: No but we haven't seen much of anything yet. Samus: Yes.02/26/2015 - 9:07pm
ZippyDSMleeWould you call the new tomb raider objectified? WOuld Samus Aran from the new Smash bros be objectified?02/26/2015 - 9:02pm
WonderkarpI'm hoping they put the rest of the comic book ghostbusters in there. Ortiz and Rookie(From GB the game)02/26/2015 - 8:38pm
Wonderkarpghostbusters board game is doing great. getting close too a 3rd extra playable Character. Ron Alexander.02/26/2015 - 8:37pm
Andrew EisenSmurfette is not subjective. If there's more than one female character, it's not Smurfette. Anyway, as with everything on the list, Smurfette is, in and of itself, not necessarily a bad thing.02/26/2015 - 8:32pm
Andrew EisenI think there's 5 women (out of 15, I think) but other than one being a bit more "hippy" than the others, they pretty much all have the same body type. Especially when compaired to the huge variety of male body types.02/26/2015 - 8:31pm
Wonderkarpso I dont see Smurfette as a bad thing. Unless like all your female characters are Smurfette. remember the Smurfs also had Sassette02/26/2015 - 8:29pm
E. Zachary KnightOne good example of the larger issues is one Anita used in the presentation, Blizzard's Overwatch game. There are a dozen men in the game with a dozen body types. But there are only 4 women with 2 body types, but 3 of them have the same one.02/26/2015 - 8:28pm
Wonderkarpthe smurfette thing is subjective to how many female characters you have. Take Sonic for example. You have Amy, who is obvious smurfette, but there's several other female characters now without that. Including the original animated seriescomics with Sally02/26/2015 - 8:28pm
E. Zachary KnightAE. Very true. I think that is where I was going, but it didn't come out right. Jack Harkness is sexy but not objectified. Whereas, a women would have to be objectified in order to be "sexy" in most games.02/26/2015 - 8:26pm
E. Zachary KnightAnd as Andrew pointed out, there is a big difference between a sexualized man, and an idealized man. But for some reason, there is no distinction between women in games. For the most part.02/26/2015 - 8:25pm
Andrew EisenI think one of the issues we run into repeatedly with these conversations is the confusion over "sexy" and "sexually objectified."02/26/2015 - 8:24pm
E. Zachary KnightYet, for some reason, in orde rto have a sexualized women, she must be wearing lingerie or a bikini. Can't women be sexual and still dress for the job at hand?02/26/2015 - 8:24pm
E. Zachary KnightThe problem I have with complaints of "sexualized men" is that men don't have to wear speedos to be sexualized. Captain Jack Harkness from Torchwood/Doctor Who, was one sexy man, but he spent 99% of his time in a WW2 soldier's trenchcoat.02/26/2015 - 8:23pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician