Jump to content

Talk:America's Army

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 64.8.81.232 (talk) at 13:18, 27 January 2005 (→Editing). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Propaganda

Face the truth and add an article about the propaganda in the game, which is probably the most important reason for the critism against the game and the game faced a lot of critism - which goes unmentioned here. All these superflous weapon and bullets should have a less priority than the propaganda since it's the propaganda why they're there: the game promises to be realistic so it can change the view of people on matters like of real life, like the army of the real life.

"Video Game Propaganda"

http://www-ugs.csusb.edu/honors/02/ResTravis.htm (from a Californian university) (a brilliant article, you should read through it completely)


"Your tax dollars at play U.S. Army gets into the gaming business. You're paying for it." http://money.cnn.com/2002/05/31/commentary/game_over/column_gaming/

(from CNN) (eg.: "[...]From a propaganda perspective, though, the Army has seemingly hit the jackpot. (And the Army readily admits the games are a propaganda device.[...]To deflect criticism, the Army development team has toned down the violence, earning a "T" rating by the Entertainment Software Ratings Board. (A "T" is on par with a "PG" rating for a movie. Games carrying that rating are meant for players ages 13 and older and may contain violent content, mild or strong language, and/or suggestive themes.) Kills in "Operations" are depicted with a puff of red, followed by the enemy falling to the ground. There are no pools of blood or dismemberment, both of which the game engine is more than capable of rendering.[...])


"Recruitment hard drive The US army is the world's biggest games developer, pumping billions into new software. Steve O'Hagan reports on the battle for young thumbs and minds" http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguide/features/story/0,,1242262,00.html

(from The Guardian, a famous British newspaper) "[...]Released in 2002, America's Army (www.americasarmy.com ) was given out at recruitment stations (which frequent US school playgrounds, like predatory ice cream vans) and put on the internet for free download. Essentially a playable piece of PC propaganda, America's Army saw 1.5m downloads in its first six months - the most successful game launch in history.[...]The US army is the biggest games developer at work today. It's channelling around $1.1bn a year of US taxpayers' money to a war chest for software development via its simulations arm (www.peostri.army.mil) and spent $50m setting up its very own LA-based dream factory, the Institute Of Creative Technologies, the Hollywood-linked high-tech research centre behind the Kubrickesquely named Full Spectrum Warrior.[...]These games may be ultra-realistic down to the calibre of the weapons, but when bullets hit flesh, people just crumple serenely in a heap. They're like Tom Clancy novels made into episodes of the A-Team. No blood. No exit wounds. No screams.[...]These two games are not the end of it.[...]US army has a shortfall in recruits, and it knows only young people are dumb enough to sign up - the average age of a US soldier is just 20[...]"

'America's Army' Targets Youth http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020902&s=hodes20020823 (from the newspaper "The Nation")

"[...]But there is a difference between realistic detail and actual reality, and as a depiction of Army life America's Army is, to say the least, misleading.[...]Players learn, in this army, that war is fun.[...]The "Go Army" button in "Operations" will generate thousands of clicks this year. The game is a good investment. Recruiting each individual soldier typically costs the army $15,000. If 400 new soldiers sign up via this web link, then America's Army will have paid for itself."


Army targets youth with video game http://www.notinourname.net/resources_links/video-game-7nov03.htm

"[...]I don't think people playing these games make a strong correlation between the game and real-world conflict, where real people are doing real important things in real places," says Rob Smith, editor of PC Gamer magazine and a history buff who loves tactical shooters.[...]" (don't forget that those from Gaming magazines know a lot about gaming culture) "[...]One payoff is showing up at the military academy at West Point, he added, where 19 percent of this year's freshman class said they had played " America's Army: Operations".[...]"

revert

If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it.


Stop reviving the inbox. It doesn't even provide correct information because it wasn't the US Army who developed the game. It was the MOVES institute who did that provided by instruction by the US army. I even posted the official website of the developers which you deleted thoughtlessly. Also "multiplayer" is incorrect too because you can't play the game online without having played the Single player mode which means training. If you don't like the addition "propaganda" (which is worth mentioning since it's the only fact that made the game famous or rather infamous) and the cause for that game in the inbox, just write another article in the main text instead of deleting it. Besides, round-based team deathmatch IS the game mode of the game. Also I mentioned the correct number of players having played the game at the same time online having checked and compared the accurate details from www.aaotracker.com which saves the stats. The highest number ever had was 4859 which was their record and achieved on 31st May, 2004. When the authentication server is down (should be mentioned in the main article because it forces the user to be tracked) the number of players on the servers is zero. It's worth mentioning because only this number gives accurate information about the number of players. If you don't mention Counter-strike but Rainbow six, you must have misunderstood something because there are only little similarities of Americans army with Rainbow, unlike with CS. Similarities with CS(amongst others): round-based time-limited team-deathmatch in which you pause for the round when dead, in which you can win the round by either accomplishing the objectives or killing all the enemies, in which the terrorist fight the counter-terrorists, which was for free and popular, which was limited to carrying ONE big weapon and ONE pistol and some GRENADES, whose grenades can be SMOKE, EXPLOSION OR FLASHBANG, in which you have to shout a comment when you throw an explosive grenade with other teammembers alive (Fire in the hole!/Frag out!), in which you can chat to the team or to everyone, in which you can't chat when dead, in which you can chat certain audible orders to your teammembers, in which you can exchange your weapon+ammo with weapons+ammo that lie on the ground, in which you don't aim at the enemy automatically, in which you you're on foot, in which there are civilians which you can kill, in which you get punished for killing civilians, in which one team wins when the time is up and in which you hear a spoken comment when won or lost a round, ETC..

Furthermore the number of accounts is inaccurate. Check the main page of America's Army and you'll see 4.2 millions. It's also crucial to say that the number of accounts has nothing to do with the number of players. And as you can see even the newspapers mistook that for the number of players, as the articles for this game show. I also added the " " to make clear it's a name which is necessary. And you can't say " is hard at work trying to catch the cheaters off-guard with mass bannings". 1.it's your own opinion. you don't know if they're really working that hard 2.they don't use mass bannings to catch the cheaters off-guard. They write a script which banishs those who've certain other data than the usualy america's army player has on his hard disk. So I wrote: "tries to find and banish cheaters" which is at least the truth and also a "Neutral point of view". Also hardware bans are just said to cause the victim to replace hardware so he can play again. I know someone who's had a hardware ban but it went away after a month or so, which makes me think it's only for a certain time.

Also it's worth mentioning the advetisement for the game by the US army. Here's the link for the source of two E3 trailers: http://aaotracker.4players.de/thread.php?threadid=7109 There's were also presentations of the game at E3s, one of which even with a military helicopter flying above the public, then landing and letting out some soldiers which pretended to be in a battlefield. To prove how misleading the game can be I noted some aspects. Wrong image of the army you may draw from this game (+ = wrong aspect that gives you an approving view of the army, - = aspect that gives you a disapproving view of the army):

- you're likely to die within (less than) 10minutes in missions (rounds last up to 10minutes, when the rounds ends usually more than 70% of all players are dead) (- bugs in the army (I've never ever played a game that had so many bugs) ) - much hate and insults between team members - training is ineffective (it doesn't really help you solve the missions) (- many cheaters (aimbot, wallhack, devmode, etc.)


+army is full of adventures (you play on various terrains, from desert till snow, the training is short, you'll mainly face missions) +you can do whatever you want in the team (you're not bound to squad formation, you can camp while your team dies alone) +the army would mainly concentrate on you (in the game you seem to be the centre of the universe, you get your own nice sergeant, your own special forces team introducing you to their jobs, they pretend as if you were the only soldier important in the fort) +battles are clear (enemies are easy to distinguish from your troop and from civilians, both your troops and the enemy start at a certain spawn that never changes, you can calculate where and when your enemies come or are present, clear briefing, help of ghosting) +no surprises possible(there are no randomly-created events, no suicide bombers, no mines, you can learn the maps by heart) +civilians act predicatably(there are only few maps with civilians, civilians don't move, they can't be terrorists in disguise) +you only fight terrorists (evilly-looking, armed, attentin-grabbing black males shouting uglily in a different language, fighting you and your like) +you are among the good guys (your objects are honorable, you fight against the destruction of a pipeline, against the aims of our evil terrorists, you escort a vip (counter-strike-copied idea), you destroy the evil) +you're equal to the tests in the army(the tests in the training can be accomplished by 6-year-olds, and even if you're so dumb and fail, you can do it again and again till you pass, mostly there's not even time limit, and if there is, it is totally exaggeratetly high eg. that you can accomplish a test where you're supposed to run through an obstacle course by normally walking) +everybody is nice to you (your personal sergeant greets you with "Good morning, soldier, and welcome to the M16A2 training course...", in the classroom they say "how's it going to you", every dumbest task you accomplish is awarded by "outstanding, soldier", "Hooah!", "good job!" or "great job!". +the runs in the army are easy to solve (no sweat, no gasp, no loss of pace when running for a long time, easy-to-solve time limit) +there are no real punishments for failure (you never have to polish any toilet, they tolerate failure in tests, they never yell at you, there's no military drill, there are no insults against you, they pretend to be your best friends) +the US soldiers all look great (like in advertisement on TV, in contrast to the terrorists, they only show handsome persons, even a woman explaining you the medical training, except for a small majority in the training, you only see white skins around (in the real army you'd face a great proportion of black soldiers, as mostly people from the lower class join the army and blacks mainly belong to it) +the training period is compared to the mission very short (after once accomplishing the little and few training missions, you can spent the rest on action missions, where are the endless pushups?) +the military has a high reputation (they published descriptions on the power and the glory of their forts, of course, skipping over every negative detail) +many people would play the game (they only showed the number of accounts rather the actual number of players on the server which could only reveal the popularity, even the articles I published fell for that, the actual number of players is, despite much advertisement for the game, merely about 1/12 of the number of players playing Counter-strike 1.6 online, which means very low) +there'd be no propaganda in the game (according to the official website and army officials +it would be the only game in which you don't have to kill to accomplish an objective (according to the official website, reality: what about the game they copied that from, called Counterstrike, which wasn't censored because of this very fact?) +everybody is honest and open to you (they flood you with unimportant and for the game irrelevant information on weapons, forts, tanks and jets (you know the kids are crazy about these things) till your mentality is like saying "shut up already, okay, I believe you") +you have to kill (despite the theory which allows to accomplish the objectives rather than kill, it is practically totally unrealistic to do without, neither you nor the terrorist have the possibility to give up) +terrorism could be fought with weapons (reality: it cannot, think tanks even report that the war in Iraq increased terrorism, making a negative contribution to the other war: the war on terror, violence can never be fought with violence) +the moral and enthusiasm of the US army is indestructable (you never see despair in their faces, you always here confidence in their shoutings, emerging even Battlefield as more realistic) +battlefields are clean and proper (some corpses vanish, there's no blood on the walls, there are no death screams or any other screams of pain, or any other kind of gore, emerging even Counter-strike as more realistic) +there's only training or battlefield (reality: there are no real battlefields anymore (compare that to Vietnam or Iraq) +there are no rules how to treat your enemy (no violation of the Geneva Convention punished) +in wars, there's fairness (there's no guerilla, there's no mines, there's traps, there's no bombs, there's no enemy in disguise, no kidnappings, no suicide bombers) +special forces are totally educated (in the game they speak 4languages perfectly, are experts in ten extensive and interesting military ranges, are the best soldiers in the world and all wan to tell you what they can like you were more important) +you are the most important member in the army (you arrive as the last soldier to the lectures, you have your own sergeant, everything focuses on you, even our nice special forces are happy that you care about them) +there is no military drill in the army (not included, everybody is nice, happy about their lives and happy to meet you, where's the harassment in the military??) +death isn't that horrible (neither gore nor screams and you are even allowed to chat and spectate other players till the round is over, after the round is over, you live again) +playing that game or joining the army would be honorable (a number in front of your name that the longer you play the game the more it increases is called "Honor" ** indicating the addiction for the game, reality: addiction isn't honorable but weak) +you can't get deaf forever (after an explosion happened close to you, you'll hear again in some seconds) +you can quit whenever you want to(you can quit the game whenever you want to) +after joining the army, you could be whatever you want to be (rifleman, squadleader, fireteamleader, sniper, special force,...) +after joining the army, you'd be more worth than anyone else (you get a nice but pointless little icon next to your name indicating that you're in the army) +there'd be democracy in the army (you even can initiate a vote to kick your squadleader if you want) +you could insult anyone you want (reality: try insulting your little bossy drill sergeant for example) +you know as much about the terrain as your enemy (reality: since the US army usually attacks in other countries, the other soldiers usually know more about the terrain) ETC. (I'm sure you could find many more)

The game can only mislead by contending to be realistic and this is what it does: For example:"Where do you think Americas Army will go in the future? TechnoloG: Our goal is to continue implementing America's Army to push the limits of current gaming technology while staying true to representing the U.S. Army. We are constantly trying balance our design goals between realism and fun. ... read more in the thread" REPRESENTING THE US ARMY

Also replace this picture of america's army. It is an official which gives the question if it's under copyright and it's no real screenshot because there are no screen elements (like HUD, or "Spectating"). The screenshot itself might even be described as propaganda because it doesn't give a balanced picture of the game. The fact that you see sunrises is what appears in many military sites as well. The sunrise creates a certain atmosphere of untouchedness, innocence and new. If you want a balanced picture add your own. It should be of the map that is played most (sf_hospital I guess), it should depict the weapon most people see (Rifleman), it should be at a playerspawn because that's the place that is most seen. You should be alive then and you should see other soldiers. You should see the average number of players, you usually see. That would present reality the most.


I won't write anything on propaganda but translate additional parts of the German version of wikipedia's America's Army article. The Counter-Strike article is one of the articles that we are told by wikipedia to base our other game articles on. Counter-Strike is even the game's closesed realative so the screenshot showed there is what this article's one should look like. It shows the map played most of the times (de_dust). It depicts the weapon that is bought most (desert eagle) and the player is close to the player spawn. Being disputable if the aao picture (which is not even a real screenshot) is protected under copyright or "PD-USGOV" is another reason why I think it should be replaced by a real one. Nightbeast Nov 29


Rainbow six doesn't mean anything here. You can compare AAO with a lot of other games only depending in what way. You can compare it with graphics,weapons, votekick, gameplay, sound, maps, objectives, to other games.... anything. So why compare it to Rainbow Six? Why pick one of those things capriciously? You could just as well say: Since it has the same engine, it is pretty much like Unreal Tournament. But it's irrelevant as well. It's most in common with CS and that's all that is to say. Well, anyway I'll leave it at comparison with rainbow six.


Realism is what makes this game a tactical shooter. Counterstrike is usually not refered to as a tactical shooter. Only when the game is played online and actual tactics come into play is it refered to this. See the article and play Rainbow Six then come back and tell me that AA is more like Counterstrike than it is Rainbow Six. K1Bond007 00:40, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)


I've played it over a year and stopped with 60 Honor. So I think I know something about the Culture which is just the same as in Counter-strike (which I played for two years). The only reason why it was removed was because it doesn't only show aao in a positive light, too bad. Bad it's crucial to mention BOTH positive aspects AND NEGATIVE. PROPAGANDA IS NOT SUBJECTIVE!! It is a definition. It is "a specific type of message presentation, aimed at serving an agenda. Even if the message conveys true information, it may be partisan and fail to paint a complete and balanced picture." America's Army's main agenda is to increase recruiting, create a positive image of the army and also to create a positive image of the US politics itself (political proganda. For example the US soldier in the game ALWAYS fight for a good cause. They always fight against terrorists and are supported by the natives. They fight against terrorism and their supposedly evil aims. They don't fight against furious civilians or little children with weapons) The advertisement for the US Army resembles usual TV advertisement. Gorgeous people are in the US army. Ugly people are on the other side, (in versions up to 1.7 it was more extreme: ugly aggressive-looking skinheads for example). And as you belong to the gorgeous guys as a player, everyone is nice to you to pretend your life is much better there. In the history pages of the game, there are no scandals, suicides, crimes or anything else negative mentioned. The army is glorified in every aspect. And to make sure the player believes this is how the real army is, the contend that it "represents the real army" and try to combine irrelevant details from reality to the game. They flood the player with hundreds of details of weapons, military bases, US army units etc. till the player gives up being critical and starts believe it's the truth. The entire purpose of the training levels is to do just that. The training itself is totally ineffective for the player with regard to performance for the rest of the game (it doesn't even teach how to run. I had to ask another player online to get to know that). But the game would never mention the low money a soldier earns (and it is low, half of what the British army earns or so I've heard) or anything negative against the army. If I still haven't convinced you, look at wrong picture it creates (the misleading aspects of the game mentioned above. And if that can't convince you, think about this: why did the game cause worldwide indignation and ethical debates if it's not because propaganda entered computer games? why is there an objective article by an university writing about America's Army as video game propaganda? why did it remain after checking for further basis for people? why has never been mentioned in any professional source that there's controversy if it's propaganda or not? why does CNN even say the army "readily admits it's propaganda"? why doesn't even the army deny it is propaganda? (I searched extensively for what the army has to say to this allegation of propaganda: nothing) why do many sources speak of it as "the world's best propaganda game and the best recruitment scheme since the Nazi threat in World War II"?


and if you still don't believe it is propaganda: why do you delude yourself or do you just pretend you don't believe it because you don't want this fact mentioned in the article because it could include the negative side of the game and be objective? But I begin to understand why you want this "screenshot" (which is not a screenshot) included: it looks good and could advertise for this game, although it is different from how the screenshots should look like. I mean real screenshots. The CS article is how we're supposed to do it.Nightbeast 16:22, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC) I've just found another source which could be used in this article as well. http://artcontext.org/crit/essays/noQuarter/ Nightbeast 17:37, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)


That's funny, really. You say it's advertisement but deny it's propaganda! Read through Wikipedia's article on propaganda and look at the examples. By the way, America's Army is an example there too. Funny, huh? And by the way, it DOES have a message "Join me!" or for those from abroad: "Have sympathy for me!". And to the editorial things: what about the research paper? Do you know what an university is? Is that article POV? Do you know what .edu means? If America's Army is not defined by the word propaganda, nothing is. And read through what I posted. No, I can't give you any statement by the army... HoW?!! Is Macdonalds advertisement no advertisement because they didnt say it is? And if the CNN guy says "the army readily admits", prove it's a lie. BTW why should the army publicly say it's propaganda? So that everybody knows? Nightbeast 23:23, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)


No sorry, that's just a wikipedian change. The actual article which is NPOV doesn't include the last line. You don't say "recruiting advertising". Propaganda means the same as in German or the Oxfor dictionary along with others just lie..Nightbeast 22:29, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thirdly, the university article calls America's Army propaganda, and I disagree. It's that simple! Also, universities don't have NPOV policies, and neither do history books or dictionaries. They could very well be POV, and I think this university article must be.

They don't publish POV article on "research paper", but if you can disprove that, go ahead. I just hope you don't only write I disagree in your English essays, do you? Nightbeast 22:14, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As for CNN, I see where you SAY CNN said that the army admits it is propaganda, but I can't find a SOURCE. Your words aren't a source - I require independent verification. Andre (talk) 21:56, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

search again for it and click on the link two lines above written by Morris, "Morris is director of content development for CNN/Money."Nightbeast 22:29, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)


oh indirectly aao manipulates the fact too, you should read my "misleading statesment".

no, to disprove you donm't need two people, you need an argument. The statement "it's POV" must be based on arguments, saying two people think it is, means nothing. an editorial doesn't mean it's a lie. it means there's an own opinion. and if he claims the army "readily admits" it's propaganda, then I've got a goddamn authority argument while you have nothing. "Because of its portrayal of the U.S. Army and its political aims". What are you trying to say??? The main NPOV artice about propganda where wikipedia got almost everything from defines America's Army as propagandaNightbeast 22:52, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)



Well, of course it doesn't create a complete and balanced picture. You can go through all the points above (not everyone opinionless, and you'll see that it doesn't create a balanced picture. To do that, it would also be necessary how the "enemy" considers his and the army's objectives. And several points more. Is it a feeling that the Geneva Convention is neglected ALTHOUGH THE DEVELOPERS CLAIM THAT "players are bound by the laws of land warfare"? Is it a feeling that there are only very few civilians included? Is it a feeling that there are no randomly-created events, no suicide bombers, no mines? Is it a feeling that everybody says nice things to you? Is it a feeling that there's no harassment in the army? Strangely a documentary on tv claims there is in the US army.


I don't lie. Speaking of painting a balanced picture, wheres the information on MILES? It's funny how the word "balance" is getting tossed around, but the majority that is posted is negative and one of the biggest parts of the game is missing. K1Bond007 23:58, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

what the hell is MILES?? anyway post something of that if it's really so important. hmm. are you talking of that training thing laser part to beep enemies down? Oh I see. Yes, that's worth mentioning too even though only few players play these maps (I liked that map in which you're in a cornfield though).

Understand this: a feeling is something subjective and is often not true. A fact is something necessarily true. If you devaluate facts as feelings, it's POV.

Gameplay

Quote: added the negative side to your positive one (I kmow I only added the bad before that too))

What the hell? Is this section about the gameplay or is about the controversies of the game. You didn't ADD anything, you replaced. I'm so sick of this article. You can edit and add all the BS you want. I'm done. K1Bond007 18:41, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

I concentrated on the map and objectives of the map "Hospital". It is the map mostly played. I only stated the objectives of one team. Then you came up with the objectives of the other team replacing. Now I came up with the objectives of both teams.

(though some players have multiple accounts) that's too inaccurate. The fact that player accounts don't get deleted and that half of them hasn't even done the training and who knows exactly how many player accounts there are? Can a site that pretends to have over 4 millions players, which is, of course, a lie and that pretends to have included "players are bound by the laws of land warfare" but has never heard of the Geneva Conventions.... There's not even safety like for e-mail providers because they'd even like it when someone writes a program creating ten accounts per seconds which is possible or maybe they made the number up. Who knows? Honesty is obviously not an army value...

Controversy: it is about political themes (I don't know what is meant by 'nationalist' but the game describes the US soldier as superior to the other soldiers. He's more gorgeous, fights for the right cause, fights evil, defends freedom, has the finest special forces, comes from the finest military stations, is supported by allies (but they're uglier than him) is always enthusiastic and so on.... well maybe 'nationalist' doesn't totally fit but political is true). Giving a good impression of the army IS political. Recruitment is related to politics and advertisement. Read the new external link (3.2.)

Gameplay: Don't try to play down what the killing of human beings means even if it could be considered a negative aspect. It's worth mentioning. I know your argument is "it's just a game" and that other games are like that too but if they tell it is a representation of the U.S. Army and their wars, it should be considered as what their enemies are described. AAO really is an interesting game... 62.134.104.30 18:54, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Political themes occur in advertising just as much as they do in propaganda. Ever see campaign ads? "I'm George Bush and I approve this message?" Also, AA is a first-person shooter like any other. What would you expect? You get points for hugging human beings? Andre (talk) 19:29, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

Maybe that's why they call it ELECTION PROPAGANDA rather than election advertisement. If AA was a normal first-person shooter, they wouldn't call it realistic, they wouldn't say it represents the U.S.Army and so on. It's just a logical conclusion that the game rewards and punishes actions. Of course, they punish FF. Otherwise it would be a chaos. But I call it perverse if you call the killing of enemies honorable and "appropriate behavior". There were no own opinions included so why remove it?

Actually, no, it's called election advertisement. At any rate, I added in the sentence "Many critics of the game feel that these aspects, normal in first-person shooters, should not be present in something that claims to represent the army, to whatever degree." to express your POV of this normal FPS behavior being inappropriate. However, making it seem unusual and abnormal for FPSes would be false and POV. Killing enemies is appropriate behavior in FPSes. Andre (talk) 19:50, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

If the "publicity and promotion to further a candidate's chance of being elected top an office or post" is not called "election propaganda", my dictionary lies to us again! Oh come on, this is getting so childish. Enter "election propaganda" into google and compare the results to "election advertisement". It's just that the word "advertisement" sounds better. But it is wrong according to the defnition. No! My point is that the game rewards the killing of opponents lastingly and calls it honorable. That's something totally different! And because it claims to represent the army, the consideration of the opponents is worth mentioning. It could just as well only connect the honor to the time played, if Honor needs to be included.


Yes, it's the name that describes the action as honorable, of course, unlike other games. And unlike other games, it even has a lasting effect. If you shoot someone in Counter-Strike, it gives you some money. It doesn't call the action honorable and when you leave the server, the effect is gone forever. It needs to be mentioned and if you call the international image of the U.S. Army and how they lead wars not a political context, I'd be curious if the word "propaganda" exists in your opinion

Yes, it describes the experience a soldier gets when he shoots an opponent as honorable, as HONORABLE. Lastingly. That's all. There has never been the question if they ushered that on purpose or not (I think they did it, you think different, the answer who's right or wrong is out there.) so I didn't mention it at all. Don't you behave so stubborn and exclude the whole truth about AAO in the article.

Andrevean, just because you added "Though not everybody agrees that america's army is propaganda. It certainly is recruitment adversary" for the word "propaganda" doesn't make the game a recruitment adversary. It just manipulates the NPOV article where the entire definition comes from and added something you can NEVER prove. You don't need more sources to prove it to you, you need a bit honesty and give in or you need counter-arguments.

Well, I don't think anyone disputes that it's a recruitment advertisement. Or do you? However, there is some disagreement regarding whether the game is propaganda. Andre (talk) 01:39, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)


As far as propaganda goes, I've made my stance pretty clear. If this were 70 something years ago, I'd agree with you that that the game is propaganda, however, as stated the word propaganda has a negative conotation attached to it now that describes things as deceptive and misleading, two things as far as the GAME is concerned I don't feel are true. Therefore, I feel calling it propaganda is highly subjective and POV. I've never stopped anyone from writing a section on the controversy that it is propaganda, but in a wikipedia article to flat out call it propaganda is wrong. K1Bond007 17:38, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

"I can't understand how anyone can really compare Counterstrike to America's Army. They're really not similar at all. The only thing truly in common is that both are first person shooters and that hardly warrants the comparisons found throughout the article especially the ones where 99.99% of time aren't even comparable such as the sentence about buying weapons in Counterstrike. Why even mention that here?"

Comparison AAO-CS

they're not comparable? so the following points are only exceptions:

a one and only round-based time-limited team-deathmatch, in which you pause for the round when dead, in which you can win the round by either accomplishing the objectives or killing all the enemies, in which the terrorist fight the counter-terrorists, which was for free and popular, which was limited to carrying ONE big weapon and ONE pistol and some GRENADES, whose grenades can be SMOKE, EXPLOSION OR FLASHBANG, in which a nightvision google can be used, in which you have to shout a comment when you throw an explosive grenade with other teammembers alive (Fire in the hole!/Frag out!), in which the player is in the SPECTATOR mode after death, in which a HUD MENU is used for weapon selection, in which you shoot more accurate when you don't move and accuracy gets worse while shooting, in which you aim more accurate when crouching, in which legal cheats for singleplayer (like godmode, noclip/ghost, weapon codes, ..), in which there are no weapons belonging to no one lie on the ground, in which you move slowlier after jumping, in which you can shoot through certain objects, in which usually one time wins and the other looses and only few draws appear but in both games a draw is possible, in which players can be directly kicked by an admin(eg Splinter cell does not allow that) && VOTEKICKED out (CS allows votecasts, so does AAO),whose SOURCE CODE is not published, in which you can COMMIT SUICIDE with a console command, in which the zone where the bullets hits decides how much damage is taken, in which there's a clear distinction between "GOOD" and "BAD" - and they're opposed being forced to kill each other without chance for surrender, in which the weight of weapons is regarded, in which FF is possible, in which walking makes noise, which were the reasons for creating clan wars in leages, in which there's a VIP hunt, in which the corpses don't vanish, NO RESPAWNING TILL END OF ROUND, SPAWNS CLOSE TO EACH OTHER, in which the health is able to be restored during the end of the round and is always restored at a new round, in which the killing of opponents is more rewarded than just with score (money/lasting score,honor), in which a map describtion is displayed on joining, NO MUSIC IN THE BACKGROUND only noises of weapons and footsteps!!!, in which jumping from a high platform causes damage, in which in which you can record DEMOS (+CONSOLE (AAO even uses this console for chatting and DEATH MESSAGES), which have updates that add or remove maps and change the gameplay, +SCRIPTS (setting aliases for CONSOLE COMMANDS)), in which the OBJECTIVES are in a clear contrast and always one team looses after time has passed without eleminating the other team or completing the objective, in which you can chat to the team or to everyone, in which you can't chat when dead, in which you can chat certain audible orders to your teammembers, which do not have other modes like Deathmatch or Capture the Flag as a choice in Multiplayer, which are using GameSpy for the server list, in which there are the weapons M249,M16,AK47, 2 sniper-rifles per team(a strong one and a weak one), in which you can exchange your weapon+ammo with weapons+ammo that lie on the ground, in which you don't aim at the enemy automatically, clans, anti-cheating programs, which are mods (CS: mod of HL; AAO: mod of UT); both specialized in Multiplayer only, in which you you're mostly on foot though containing vehicles (CS allows vehicles in maps, so does AAO), in which there are civilians which you can kill, in which you get punished for killing civilians/hostages, ETC... You can add some more if you like! So far I've been dealing with the fact that the gameplay is very similar. But the main point is that almost every gamer knows Counter-Strike in contrast to Rainbow Six.

WTF. You just described over a hundred video games out there. Rainbow Six, Ghost Recon just for starters. There are literally thousands of video games that are round based drawing a comparison between AA and CS in this fashion is just foolish. Secondly, America's Army is not a mod. It's a full-version game licencing the engine from Epic Games. If I were to use your logic, Half-Life would be a mod since Half-Life isn't an original game engine. It, in fact, is using the Quake engine, but you knew that because look at all the information up there! You can record DEMOS!! YOU CAN DO THAT IN ALMOST EVERY GAME USING THE UNREAL OR QUAKE ENGINE. This is ridiculous. I feel like the only game you've ever played is Counterstrike. What about Medal of Honor: Allied Assault. You can play round based, you only get so many grenades, theres cheating, there's anti-cheats, theres clans, theres enemies, you can record demos! It's JUST LIKE AMERICA'S ARMY! -- but I'm the blind one K1Bond007 23:30, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
There is no need to discuss whether CS is a mod of HL or HL is a mod of Q2 which would implicate that CS can't be a mod of HL..

STOP DISTRACTING FROM THE SUBJECT BY TRYING TO FOCUS ON SUCH IRRELEVANT ISSUES.

If you know any other game that has more in common with AAO, go ahead or yield. There's no game which has all the listed features TOGETHER!! But wait, I agree with you in one point: don't list all the similarities between AAO and CS in the article, not because they're different, but because there ARE TOO MANY, the differences should be listed.

Rainbox Six is a very weak comparision because it's using autoaim and focuses on SinglePlayer as well.80.184.109.70 12:35, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Rainbow Six also has a very popular multiplayer portion of the game that doesn't have autoaim. Also autoaim is an option. It can be turned on or off. It depends on the difficulty or the user and because of which is irrelevant. Anything more to add? AA is not comparable to counterstrike. You just can't face the simple truth here because Counterstrike is all you know. K1Bond007 17:13, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Haven't I posted enough similarites??????????????? Just because they're not TOTALLY the same doesn't mean that they're not comparable. When there are so many similarities it is not only comparable but also SIMILAR. Make a list of more similarities between AAO and Rainbow looking at what I posted. Only name those that CS does NOT have and then those of the list that CS has but Rainbow Six doesn't. If you manage that and point out you're right then you have an argument but otherwise, stop getting stuck on those issues. Learn to accept that AAO is very to CS. 20:07, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)~


Don't pretend to be THAT blind. That's just too obvious, you know? If you can -READ- better than me, then you'll have noticed these comparisons already at the beginning of the talk age. Or why don't you just read the article of CS and compared the gameplays? Well, anyway it's obvious that you're just TRYING TO DISTRACT from the rest. How pathetic!

Propaganda: We're talking about the dictionary meaning, not that the word often carries negative connontations. Just because prpaganda has got a bad reputation, doesn't mean propaganda isn't propaganda anymore.

And I would agree, however, the word does have a negative connotation and you can't hold a blind eye to that. Even in the wikipedia article it states this. I was for a previous edit by Andre that claimed it was propaganda, but also mentioned the game not having a lot of the negative connotations associated with the word today. K1Bond007 23:39, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
'Nazi' also contains a "negative connotation" - is that a reason to erase it from history?

If the definition of the words fits the case it should be allowed even if it's no positive aspect. Is a dog no dog because in some languages "Dog" has negative connontation??? It is DEFINITely a dog! If you replace the word "propaganda" to 80.184.109.70 12:35, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh shutup dude. WTF. Nazi ONLY has a negative definition. I can't believe I even bother with you. This is honestly the dumbest thing I've ever read. K1Bond007 17:13, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
Consider the word "retard." If you're someone with mental disabilities, you don't want to be called a "retard." It's not a nice word. It has a negative connotation. Propaganda is a step further, in that its negative connotation has come to be the only viable connotation in most contexts. Andre (talk) 17:17, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

"Oh shutup dude. WTF." (You needn't start insulting Bond, I'm sure OBJECTIVE admins wouldn't like that.) Actually that was just an example to say that a lot of words have a "negative connotation" but to name another word that fits less only because of the reputation is just POV (I know you like that word). I forgot that the word has two meanings, the historical (abr. of Nationalsozialist) and the pure insult so I admit it was a bad example and history books don't include that word for this reason because they're neutral. So what do they call propaganda? Advertisement? No, they call it propaganda, just and only propaganda. As you know, this "negative" and "positive" are subjective opinions => POV. Only the definition of the word is deciding. Propaganda OFTEN has a negative connontation, because most people don't like it. If you replace it with "advertisement", which only fits for non-political stuff, only shows your POV making the article subjective. Advertisement does NOT INCLUDE POLITICAL CONTEXTS. Advertisement is not a synonym for propaganda. To Andre: retard's definition is SLANG and OFFENSIVE. You wouldn't find it in any book using formal or neutral tone. It does not have a negative CONNOTATION, the meaning of the word is always negative and only used to express a negative view whereas the CONNOTATION of propaganda is not necessarily negative but only another POV. I mean, the connotation can both be considered negative by some and positive by others - this connotation is NOT DEFINABLE and therefore not defined so it musn't be considered. America's Army IS propaganda, even the source where most of Wikipedias' Propaganda-definition comes from states that propaganda has often a negative connontation AND defines America's Army as propaganda.20:07, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)~

Sorry, you're wrong. First of all, advertising is often used for political contexts. TV ads for politicians are ads, not propaganda - people don't call them propaganda chiefly due to the negative connotation we're discussing here! Secondly, the word retard comes from the Latin retardare, meaning "to delay." Historically in English it has been used to refer to anyone who is delayed in development, mentally. Thus the term "mentally retarded," or more colloquially "retard," has a denotation that refers to people with mental disabilities, and a connotation that is extremely negative. By the way, "oh shutup dude. WTF." isn't a personal attack, and I am an administrator. Andre (talk) 20:49, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

TV ads for politicians is called ELECTION PROPAGANDA. This is the correct word. Those parties would never call it propaganda because propaganda sounds worse than the word "advertisement", although it doesn't fit. That's their POV, they're biased. People went on with calling it "TV advertisement" because everyting on TV which tried to convince them to do something was usually advertisement (since it was mainly aimed at promoting goods and services). Now, if you call something Election propaganda, most wouldn't understand... And (if they know what propaganda is), because they're used to the word "advertisement", they'd call it biased because the only reason they'd see why the word "propaganda" was chosen, would be because "propagaganda" is often considered negative and hence POV. But it's no use just to call propaganda, "advertisement". "Propaganda" is and will ever be the correct word for "propaganda", mainly the promotion of political contexts. The definition of the word "retard" carries SLANG and OFFENSIVE. The definition of the word "propaganda" does not. "Advertisement" is NO synonym for "propaganda."


Whatever. You're so innocent. Btw, I like how you changed the image on the page by overwriting it. Very sneaky. You couldn't get the support here because it was a legal and a perfectly ok screenshot to use, so you just went behind the block on the page and changed it. We could have used that image elsewhere on the page, but obviously if it's not your way, it's not the correct way. Am I right? I'm done arguing about this and editing the article. You're not into actually having any sort of civil discussion about anything if people disagree with you. No matter how many times your edits have been reverted, argued, pointed out as being POV/subjective, and even infringing on other copyrighted works, you haven't changed your way. You continue to change it to suit YOUR beliefs and feelings on the article even when you're possibly wrong. In retrospect what I said was wrong and probably shouldn't have been said, however, I also have no regrets. K1Bond007 21:32, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I like that image too: maybe it's not a screenshot (the other wasn't either. I pointed THAT out to you as well) but it's the cover of the game and one of the wiki examples had that as a gamepicture too. Why I didn't announce it? I've got the impression you've stopped keeping your mind open lately and started to have a reactionary POV. What do you mean by "if it's not my way, it's not the correct way"?? Was it me or someone else who locked the page to promote his own version? And what did I do? I compounded what I considered the best parts of the two versions to have a better article and responded to every discussion point. Yes, of course, you're sick of argueing because to be successful on this page, you'd need arguments instead of some pathetic admin rights. You accuse me of not behaving civil?? I consider "shut up" and insult and not civil in a discussion. Did I insult you?? People can disagree with me and I'll still keep my mind open and search for improvements. You pointed out that my edits, MY!!, were subjective??? I thought I'd made clear they were not but obviously talking is not your favorite... Now you're referring to the picture again... Like I said I don't care a damn if it's copyright or not. The actual reason why I changed it was because it is no screenshot at all. It was just a modified picture from the official site to advertise for the game, not a normal screenshot you'd see everywhere. It is for this reason why I replaced it with the second method of depicting something of the game: front cover. It took a long time to find it by the way and it doesn't suit my beliefs or feelings at all by the way. I didn't usher my opinion, just facts to balance the article with you counteracting and with you trying to usher basically wrong words (advertisement) that could create a better reputation for the game.

It was a screenshot. How is it not. It was taken IN-GAME. Granted it doesn't have a HUD, but thats not a requirement to be a screenshot. And you can call what I said anything you want, I don't care. You calling my arguements blind and pathetic makes you all the more hypocritical. K1Bond007 22:38, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

How do you know for sure?? It's just "Taiga 3/4" from the main page of the game. It's not a usual screenshot. This picture is to create a good impression of the game and not to show a common scene of it. I think the cover fits better into an infobox (the example in the wikiproject also used the cover and not a picture from the publishers. If I'd posted a real screenshot you'd have called it POV anyway; I think that's the most objective one - although it's to promote the game as well) I don't think there is the need for a discussion because of that. There are much heavier issues to be discussed. You should be glad I don't insist on a screenshot of a common scene of the game which might be considered to have "negative connotations".145.254.137.153 00:13, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think that the game cover is a better image for the infobox, but the other screenshot should not have been overwritten. That's not how things are done. I don't have a vested interest in making this game look good, but calling it propaganda without explaining that this is a point of view is not NPOV. Do I, personally, believe that the game is propaganda? Yes, I do - does this surprise you? Is this my POV? Yes. Is this an absolute truth? No, so it must be expressed in an NPOV fashion.Andre (talk) 22:45, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

My responses are placed between allegations, below.

Sorry, but I had to overwrite it to see how it would look like because your friend blocked the site from changes. If you miss the screenshot, it's saved in the history and can be very easily found on the official homepage of that game. Propaganda is NO POINT OF VIEW. Why should it be????? It's not more POV than "advertisement", "Life", "being" or "gun". Just like all the other words, it's bound to a definition. I've already mentioned: -the fact that such newspapers as The Guardian describe aao as propaganda

In editorials, which are POV
 which doesn't mean that facts aren't facts or that propaganda isn POV. It is not. Editorials just include an opinion.

-the fact that the only two university articles about AAo I found described aao as being propaganda

Well naturally you're not going to find university articles about it NOT being propaganda. The propaganda allegation is all that makes AA interesting to university article writers.

Yes, but the question if AA is propaganda has always been responded to with YES. Question (aao propaganda?) and answer (yes). If you find one saying NO, tell me. -the fact that the game creates an incomlete and unbalaned picture

All you've alleged so far regarding this is that there isn't any blood and players can't be terrorists. Neither of these are unusual - the government wanted to avoid an M rating, and the stated point of the game is to portray a fight "for freedom," not against it. How effective would the game be as a recruitment device if it had players play as the terrorists? Freedom and speculations?? Are you tryining to distract again? It's controversial if it's "for freedom" or not. Just don't mention it. You mentioned the government... where does propaganda often come from? "Not incomplete or not balanced??? So where are all the civilians, where are the mines, traps, suicide bombers, guerilla fighters, anything????? And what's your argument?? Because people already know you bleed in war?? Thanks for the argument, because that just proves that the picture is not complete, that only other knowledge makes it complete. Where's the POV? Oh I see, just an accusation to scare. " And that's just some examples. You can find more from the "false picture the game creates" at the beginiing of this talk page. Since I haven't played the game for a long time and still remember all these things... maybe you could add some more.

-the fact that CNN claims the army "readily admits it's a propaganda device"

And yet, in this CNN column, there's not a reference or a quote of any kind, and this CNN editorial is the only source alleging that the Army admits it is a propaganda device. Lacking any other information to the contrary, I must assume that the CNN writer is lying or mistaken. Fact is that CNN writers almost never lie, otherwise they'd ruin their own and their channels reputation. It's extremely unlikely that he's lying and you know that. That CNN says it "readily admit it's a propaganda device" is an authority argument.

-links to recruitng centers Goarmy.com (on the main page and when you want to rent a server)

Because it's a recruitment device. Recruitment, too, has a political context.

-the fact that propaganda is usually used in political context

Not any more so than advertising. "Buy Coke" and "Vote for Bush" are two advertisements, neither are propaganda.

Well except for "vote for Bush" because of its political context although it doesn't contain anything incomplete or unbalanced. Where's YOUR argument that "vote for Bush is advertisement instead of propaganda? Only that you're more used to the word? That's the only (weak) argument you have and can have. It is and remains a fact that propaganda is usually used in political context. America's Army HAS political context! -the fact that advertisement is usually used at the promotion of goods or services

See previous. Does "see previous" oppose the fact that "advertisement is usually used at the promotion of goods or services"? No, it does not. Fact is fact. Advertisement is no propaganda.

-the fact that there's mainly political background of AAO (1 the image of the US Army, 2 image of their wars, 3image of its enemies(4terrorists), "The use of the terms terrorism and terrorist is politically weighted, as these terms (and historically, other terms like them) are often used in propaganda to drum up support in opposition to the designated "terrorists."5 recruitment, 6USarmy=army game=instrument of american politics, 7USarmy=army game=repressive state apparatus, 8recruitment=standing army=of high political importance,9USarmy=army game=implicitly represents the values of its society and its government, 10 from Congress, 11 not only recruitment (which can also be called advertisement) is important but worldwide publication because of the army's image, etc.)

"See previous." See? You can't oppose it at all. AAo has mainly political context as you can see.

-the fact that history books are neutral and are supposed not to include POV

History is written by the winners. Additionally, I often find that American history books are biased on such events like the annexation of Hawaii or the Vietnam War. Then I wonder why both German and English history books are calling propaganda propaganda. If think your history book is biased, find another one. History books mention facts and sources, they don't comment on anything. That's also why a lot of pages are found boring by some. In German, propaganda has negative connontations too (no wonder, propaganda hadn't achieved much positive in germany before) and in German the (non-existing) word (translated) "election advertisement" is mostly used for "election propaganda" but still the word is included in social science books of today for stuff of today. For example parties do propaganda to the public, parties do propaganda to parliament, governement does propaganda to the public, economy does advertisement to the public. Oh i see! They're ALL BIASED!! Boo boo...

-the fact that all the history books speak of what is defined by propaganda as ... propaganda

I fail to see how this is relevant to America's Army, which is not history. You claimed propaganda is POV or just an insult. Obviously it is not. History books KEEP TO THE DEFINITION OF THE WORD, not to words that have a similar meaning without often negative connontations. If history books would call propaganda advertisement, they'd be biased because they'd try to replace the correct word by a wrong word to create a better impression.

-the fact that dictionaries are neutral and usually reliable

Dictionaries chiefly feature denotation, not connotation.

So a dog is a cat? I mean because dogs sometimes carry negative connontations and cats are similar to dogs. -the fact that dictionaries claim propaganda is no synonym for advertisement or vice versa

No one is alleging such.

Correct but misunderstood. The fact thats it's no synonym proves that advertisement CANNOT REPLACE propaganda. -the fact that dictionaries don't describe Propaganda as matter of tast or anything

What's tast? I mean they don't describe it as capriciously defined. well not improtant anyway

-the fact that the main article (NPOV; protected) of the definition of the word "propaganda" from where wikipedia has most of the information of the word "propaganda" from describes aao as such

As says this article, Though not everyone agrees that this game is propaganda, it's certainly a recruitment advertisement.

Lol, no, you just manipulated that NPOV article. Besides it's irrelevant that not everybody agrees. Not everybody agrees that the world is a globe but still it is. Not everybody agrees that there was a landing on the moon (<--I mean it) but that doesn't oppose the fact at all and just like not everybody agrees it's propaganda, not everybody agrees it's recruitment adversary. The game contains mainly propaganda but also recruitment adversary. I told you the political context of the game proving it. -the fact that I haven't found any source on the net opposing the view of aao not being propaganda or rather advertisement or that there's controversy if it's advertisement or propagaganda or anything

"How about the players of the game?" Oh wait a second, I'll ask some 6-year-old idiot who got shot and accuses the whole world of cheating. The players of the game are as immature as in CS (CS should have older people because it's not Teen rated). They could claim it is not propaganda, but, of course, they wouldn't have an argument (nor a clue). The sectopm "What is supposed to be changed" contains that "a lot of players don't think it is [propaganda] and prefer the word "recruitment advertisement"" so I included the fact that not everyone considers it propaganda.

-the fact that you haven't come up with more than just the allegation it is POV and the fact that the word "propaganda" often carries negative connontations

What else do I need to come up with? You could have come up with an article claiming AAO is not propaganda... if you find one. You can't deny the definition of the word propaganda and you can't deny the political background of aao. I don't think you could come up with more anyway, because there's no fact contradicting to what I posted. Don't play stubborn and add the truth. I TOLD YOU!

... No, don't you now come up saying "the guardian is no authority for me" or anything. How many times are we going trough this again and again? Are you maybe trying to distract into smaller and smaller points only postpone the time when it is corrected in the main article? Please focus and make way for the improvements (at the bottom of this page) for the main article. Or are you just trying to avoid anything apart from your version?

ANDRE, I knew you'd come up trying to start little distractions to smaller and smaller issues to get more time and mislead. Your version of the article is CRAP and contains your POV because you replaced the correct word "propaganda" with the wrong word "advertisement" to create a better image of the game. You know you're wrong and you don't want to accept it.




Andre, while we're at it...

I really can't deal with this much longer. The whole point of consensus building is compromise. I've compromised already by mentioning the propaganda allegation in the article, where I feel it has no place. You haven't compromised - you merely spout the same allegations again and again in your stilted, non-native speaker English. Please understand that it doesn't matter who you convince of your view - it's not an absolute truth, and will not be written as such in the article no matter what, unless the Army admits that AA is propaganda. Andre (talk) 00:41, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Compromised??? What was the last version I wrote? A compromise! Who ignored it immediately and had the page blocked?? You (or your friends, I don't care). Why did you do that? To avoid a compromise and try to advertise including your POV. You've tried all the time to advertise for the game and leave out negative aspects. That's not an advertisement page, it's supposed to be an OBJECTIVE article. You just locked the page because you're incapable of not having your opinion included. You tried to have it unbalanced and to mislead. A fact is not allegation but a fact. An allegation may be a fact but it may be false as well. I didn't include my POV, but you did by replacing correct words by wrong words, by mentioning the good sides but "forgetting" the negative ones. The fact that you want the army to admit is just as ridiculous as not accepting that the earth is a globe until god did or as ridiculous as describing a dog, a cat because dogs don't admit they're dogs. The difinition of propaganda applies to the game and that's all that counts. But if my bad English bothers you, feel free to correct it. Now concentrate on that below please instead of trying to distract and go through the same again and again.

still to change

It's more propaganda than recruiting adversary because of the political context. The fact that not everyone agrees that it is advertisement is clear. Some people don't even accept that the world is a globe... no honestly! Besides, I've met players that not even agree it is recruiting adversary. Some claim it is a training tool, some even think they did it all for free... one even claimed it wasn't meant for the public. Another one even claimed it's no first-person-shooter...

{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{ But what does the army claim? "Q: Is this a recruiting tool? A: … it provides young adults and their influencers with virtual insights about the Army…"

Too hard to say "yes" or "no"? The army can't even admit it's a recruiting tool, how pathetic. But what about the fact that the army rewards the killing of opponents and calls it indirectly honorable? "Q: Does the game encourage players to kill other game players? A: Violence merely for the sake of violence is not part of the Army and therefore is not rewarded within the game." (OH YES?????? Score? Honor? Class selection? ) Q: How have you designed the game so that violence is discouraged? A: …if they fail to operate as a member of a team that is operating towards achievement of a U.S. Army objective, then they will not advance in the game. (what about the violence IN REGARD TO THE OPFOR?!? How can you win on Hospital on ambush? By kissing the VIP to death???)

This is all incredibly stupid. It's a GAME. If you've ever played the game you would know that someone can go into the game kill 20 people and still end up with something close to zero points if they failed to stay alive or do any of the goals. Goals and Leadership account for more points than your kills do. Thus the above statement is true. K1Bond007 17:38, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, you're right... if he FAILS TO SHOOT THE VIP for example... it encourages violence, but, as you said, it discourages death. Leadership and goal are also connected to the killing of enemies. No team could ever achieve anything without shooting the enemies, no team. Only through the aid of weapons a VIP can pass safely, only through the aid of weapons a CP or the valves can be unprotected, only through violence a team can be successful.

Q: How many of the missions require force? A: Less than 40% of the missions in the game depict simulated combat… (Oh more than 60% of the game is training? Did I miss something?)

Whoa whoa whoa Mr. Unbalance.. how about quoting the rest of that answer: "Less than 15% of the missions in the game depict training with weapons, roughly one-fifth depict training in units with our laser-tag systems, and one-fourth depict training in which there are no weapons. Team based combat missions are approximately only 40% of the game." The laser-tag system, MILES, is considered training equipment, which is why those missions are considered "training". K1Bond007 17:38, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
nice playing with figures!!! It's a good choice to pick "missions" to play with.

If they create a hundred of training maps which only consist of one room (that would be called "mission" as well) which teleports to another, they could even have much better numbers to conceil the truth. Unfortunately they don't say how much time the players spend on "missions" that use weapons and unfortunately those maps with MILES (also counted to the "missions") don't have servers or empty servers and thus are unplayable but exist though. But it's nice how they're trying to confuse and those nice fractions that use roundings while no numbers are given how they were calculated - who would spend time to find out?? Let's get back to reality, it's a matter of fact that a player spends most time on "missions" that require shooting and you know that. I know it's impossible to prove that but I think there's no need to prove it anyway.

[...]We have made a game that stresses values and does not condone bad behavior. (that's true... only if the killing of OPFOR isn't considered bad behavior) }}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}


"While it fundamentally fits the definition of a playable and subliminal slice of propaganda, a lot of players don't think it is and prefer the word "recruitment advertisement" instead and emphasize it is more realistic than most other first-person shooters."needs to be added because it's 1 the truth and 2 the most important counter-argument for the game. The most important arguments in favor of the game are also there: unreal engine, for free, popular. If you don't add that there, it seems biased and unbalanced.

"It also adopts a great deal from the most widely played online FPS for the past few years, Counter-Strike, a Half-Life modification. " needs to be taken because 'adapt' is the wrong word and "the most widely played online FPS for the past few years" is a fact that characterises CS better than that it is a Half-Life modification. If you don't know CS, you (usually) don't know Half-Life either. Half-Life was a revolution in the history of games and CS revoluted online gaming. There's still about 12 times as many CS1.6 players than there are aao players.

"However, it is not about the promotion of a commercial product but mainly about political themes and therefore suggests the word "propaganda"." needs to be said because it's the truth. It doesn't say you can't say "advertisement" for it but because of the political aspects it just cannot be denied that it is more related to the word (<-- I didn't even include that).

If you don't include "The killing of human beings and the outcome of the mission corresponds lastingly to score points and "Honor". However, it draws a sharp distinction between the U.S. Army (including allied Indigenous forces), and opposing forces. The killing of Americans or their allies has an extremely negative effect on your score and "Honor", consequently calling it totally dishonorable. The killing of opponents, by contrast - no matter if they were trying to kill you or if they are unnarmed - increases your score and "Honor", consequently calling the action honorable in general. The accomplishment of the U.S. Army's aims, instead of their opponents aims, affects your score favorably and therefore your "Honor" as well, indirectly calling the objectives of the U.S. Army honorable and the objectives of its opponents dishonorable at the same time. The score and, as a result, "Honor" is saved in the players' accounts." but only that friendly fire is punished, you only includ ONE SIDE OUT OF TWO. Think of the word "complete" and "balanced". Also, the effect is lastingly and describes the killing as honorable, indirectly but it does. It may be controversial if they did that on purpose but that it does is clear. It mentioned that there's lasting punishement for FF and lasting rewards for killing opponents... and that's just how it is like.

"it is also slower than Counter-Strike's". Compare these two speeds and you'll also agree on that.

I quit

I quit, people. I can't deal with this page anymore and Nightbeast/anonymous editor's nonsensical arguments. Sorry. Andre (talk) 20:21, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

(Deleted Flame [[User:GregNorc|GregNorc|Talk]])Policy: "Do not protect a page you are involved in an edit dispute over." Thus you totally ignored that one. Your friend called what I did "vandalism". However, it was not http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism . If it was something then it was stubbornness but that's not vandalism and I didn't revert the page but create improved ones. I did most of the article from the correct dates of all versions over to the correct history and to gameplay. I only tried to improve it so it wasn't even stubborness, I kept my mind open all the time. You? You had it locked and tried to dig in the same aspects of the conversation we already had again and again to distract. You changed the article in your favour, (Deleted Flame [[User:GregNorc|GregNorc|Talk]]), since you were the ones without objective ones (deleted inflammatory comment) The very least thing you could do is open the main article again and let it improve. Before I came, before I affected the page, it looked like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=America%27s_Army&oldid=7907161 Now, with the version I'd like, it would look like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=America%27s_Army&oldid=8163028

When all is said and done

IF ANYONE OPPOSES MY PROPOSAL OF CHANGE OF THE AAO-ARTICLE, EXPRESS IT (with arguments) NOW, OR REMAIN QUIET AND ACCEPT IT. IF THERE'S NOONE OPPOSING IT, I'LL CALL THE DISPUTE, THE EDIT CONFLICT, FINISHED IN TWO DAYS AND OFFICIALLY CALL FOR IMMEDIATE UNRPOTECTION OF THE SITE.
I don't think anyone agrees with your "proposal" to be flat out honest here. I've opposed it as well as two others. You can't just "call the conflict" because you've driven everyone away. This is supposed to be a time of compromise etc, but nothing has been compromised on. The best we did there was decide that we can use that one screenshot, which regardless of that you went and overwrote. Shame. K1Bond007 18:04, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, but I see neither you nor anyone else opposing the version. Just you and two other guys REVERTED it obviously without thinking about it. You're still not opposing anything with arguments but thanks for letting me know you're against it. But the simple fact that you're against it provokes a "I don't care feeling" unless you add the why-part to the fact that you disagree.

LOL we told you many times. It was either reverted due to copyright infringement or because it was extremely POV. I don't think it's that hard to understand. The "why part" has been explained so many times on my end it's pointless for me to continue to type it out. You don't get it anyway.

You claimed a very old one (it is not the version we're discussing right now) was a copyright infrigtion but I don't believe that either. It belongs more to a copyright infrigation than just that one sentence appears from one article with copyright in another article. It wouldn't make any sense, you know that. And you even exaggerated that claiming it was even more a copyright infrigation when I changed some words in that old version. From a logical propsect it wouldn't make ANY sense at all. From the legally prospect, of course, it wouldn't make any sense at all either. But we're just talking about this very old version. I don't think it's that hard to understand either. You also failed to explain why it was POV. I replied to any of your pointless accusations and you started to change the topic and just didn't reply anymore... Now you're digging again in that old stuff only to confuse persons reading this and trying to delay the outcome of the solution of this. There hasn't been any why-part for the version I'd like to realize either so it's indead pointless for you to say anything against it since there's nothing against it.

You see? Just like at school: opinion+REASON FOR OPINION. I've driven no one away. The simple fact that there were no arguments against my version and the simple fact that the other version is protected (for own stubborness) drives them away. It's time for a compromise???? The last version I wrote WAS a compromise but it was rejected for being a compromise and not the same version as before. (I don't care a damn about the "screenshot". The one now is still advertisement for the game like the one before. It's just that it was the cover of the game. There are two options: either screenshot or cover. I picked "cover" because you would have opposed any screenshot anyway. "Your" old "screenshot" wasn't even a screenshot, it was just an advertisement picture for the new maps from the main page of the game. How many times do I have to explain to you this?? You're always trying to dig in what has already been went through.)

You're so blind to whats going on here it's disgusting. Andre quit or perhaps you've forgotten. I know I said I quit in the past, but until some sort of compromise or someone else enters the discussion, I'm done with the article. I'm tired of your BS. K1Bond007 01:58, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

Why's that disgusting? Because someone had other views than you? Because this someone could argue more reasonable than you and had something like arguments? Or are you trying to combine your allegation with the fact that Andre quit. Of course, he does! He's had HIS version protected, he knew that he couldn't come up with plausible arguments and why should he waste his time distracting and digging despite the fact that it's HIS version protected?? You still haven't come up with reasons against my compromise-version and don't you come up pretending you're trying to search for a compromise because a compromise was what was pointlessly ignored, called "vandalism" (to have the other version protected and chosen) and then NEITHER OF YOU HAD AND STILL HAS NO ARGUMENT AGAINST MY COMPROMISE-VERSION (as you can see, the section "still to change" is still not opposed).

Here are my objections to the page in its current state - there would be more if I included some of the things you have been trying to add.
  • "The age of U.S. soldiers is merely 20 on average.". This statement is wrong and not all that relevant anyway. A quick google reveals the average age of casualties in Iraq to be 27. I couldn't find the overall average, but I suspect it to be older than 20.Grover9 05:51, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why do you say it's "wrong" if you haven't found the average age of a US soldier on the internet? How do you know? It might be wrong, it might be right. But it is irrelevant at any rate so leave that sentence out.62.134.104.253 15:23, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • "America's Army is a figurative and written type of message presentation". I'm not sure exactly what this bit is trying to say, but it needs rewording.Grover9 05:51, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Any suggestions?Nightbeast 21:57, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • The game doesn't use the term Terrorist. The enemy are always referred to as Opposing Forces, Resitance Forces or simply Enemy Forces. Americas Army is not a SWAT vs Terrorist game like counter-strike. I think we should pick a term for each side and use it consistently throughout the article, otherwise it gets too confusing because of both teams seeing themselves as US forces. Opposing Forces is probably the clearest and most neutral term for the enemy.Grover9 05:51, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sorry but you must be kidding, grover: at least the map descriptions of 9 different maps refer to the enemies as terrorists or terrorist forces. And America's Army IS a governmental power vs Terrorist game with the player always seeing the enemy as terrorist and himself as SWAT or US Army or whatever.Nightbeast 21:57, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I did actually check the descriptions, but must have missed the ones that called the enemy terrorists. Anyway if the game calls them that, then its fine in the article.Grover9 06:18, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • "Unlike in Counter-Strike, you can't join the "Terrorists" and you don't buy your equipment". That tells us nothing about Americas Army, only that it doesn't do something that counterstrike does. What does Americas Army do instead? Some of this is convered later on in the US/OPFOR transormation section, but I think that information should be integrated into the gameplay section.Grover9 05:51, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Comparing CS's gameplay with America's Army, there are only these few differences. Some like CS, others don't but still many millions of gamers know CS so it might make sense to compare these two. To examine the hand out of the weapons in the game or the US/Opfor transformation would take too much space in the gameplay-section but it shouldn't be left out or otherwise players would think it's completely like CS.Nightbeast 21:57, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I just don't think refering to counter-strike so many times helps explain anything at all. Many people don't play counter-strike and to them the article is going to be confusing.Grover9 05:51, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As I read through the sentence, I must admit it's indeed a bit confusing. Maybe a reference to US/OPFOR Transformation could fit. Something like "(read more at US/OPFOR Transformation, below)". Or the entire paragraph about the transformation could just be ushered there instead of in the category "Realism" (I don't don't think it has much to do with realism... which doesn't mean it's unrealistic but it's just a feature that isn't connected to realism. But then maybe the "Gameplay" section would become to large... "and you don't buy your equipment" is pretty confusing at any rate. The reader won't get to know how the class selection actually works. I don't think the allocations of weapons should be left out, but it shouldn't be explained to detailed either. The reference to CS isn't necessary either but, like I said, these two points shouldn't go unmentioned.62.134.104.253 15:23, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • "In contrast to Counter-Strike, the developers of America's Army have done little so far to prevent spying ghosts from communicating with those still playing.". What does mentioning counter-strike add to the article? It would be better to compare to UT2004 which has built-in voice chat and uses the same engine as Americas Army and mention how this feature should be appearing in a future version of Americas Army and should solve the majority of the complaints regarding ghosting.Grover9 05:51, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Built in voice chat? Like "Area secured"? That's JUST what CS has. UT2004 has except for the engine (is it UT2004??? You sure??) almost nothing in common with America's Army... and the voice chat of UT is not very comparable either... "YOUUUUUUUUUUUUUU WHOOOOOOOOOORE!", "YOU BLEED BETTER THAN YOU SHOOT!", "PAIN WILL PURIFY YOU!" "AAAAAAAAAAAND STAY DOWN!" "YOU FIGHT LIKE NALI!" "DIE, BITCH!"...Or are you talking of in-game said-by-player voices? But as far as I know CS has the same. But why should that block ghosting to any extent? A strict black-screen after death, just like some CS servers have, could prevent ghosting completely and that the one and only possibility to prevent ghosting. But I don't know, maybe the developers think a black screen might depict death in a way that they don't like.Nightbeast 21:57, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The reason the game doesn't have a black screen is because many players have said they don't want it. It would be useful for competition games though, but I'm not sure if its a planned feature. AA uses the unreal engine(UT2003), which will be updated to the UT2004 engine in the next patch (maybe 2.4 I'm not sure exactly). I meant in-game said-by-player voice chat. You are right, it wont stop people from ghosting, but most people wont bother using 3rd party voice programs anymore and the ingame voice chat doesn't allow dead players to talk to alive ones.Grover9 06:18, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • "Many critics of the game feel that these aspects, normal in first-person shooters, should not be present in something that claims to represent the army, to whatever degree.". Which critics? The gameplay section should concentrate on the facts of the gameplay. This part belongs in the controversy section.Grover9 05:51, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That sentence is totally pointless... That's why I changed it in that other version.Nightbeast 21:57, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • "Ironically, the trigger for most "account thefts" was a warning message on the official website that warned users not to share the file containing the password." How did the warning message trigger "most acount thefts"? I can't see how this is possible. The entire section on account thefts is full of inaccuracies and POV phrasing. You blame the developers for not encrypting the password, then accuse them of causing paranoia for warning them about letting people have access to the file in question.Grover9 05:51, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That's not from me so I can't give you any answer either.Nightbeast 21:57, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • "The first person to reach 100 Honor was a foreigner and has never got his account back.". What are you trying to imply here? That foreigners have their accounts stolen off them for the sole reason of reaching 100 honor? There is no way to know why this persons account was banned (or if this person exists and had their account banned in the first place - link?) so it should be removed.Grover9 05:51, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Same thing: That's not from me so I can't give you any answer either.Nightbeast 21:57, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)


When y'alls've finished this hyar text-mode shoot-'em-up howzabout the last one standing unlock the article and add an ext link to (RIP) Gary Webb's article? Kwantus 17:40, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)

Serious Game

It's interesting that you want to connect your article about "serious game" and America's Army but it's laughable all the same. The public version of America's Army is not even meant to be a simulation. It's meant to be a recruiting and puplic relations first-person-shooter. In what way does it train???? How to act in a battle???? How to kill?! Is the game supposed to make its players a fighting mashine??????? Well, if you think so, then EVERY first-person shooter would do just that. Players of first-person shooters are often good soldiers, they say. If America's Army is a simulation, Counter-Strike should be a (more successful) simulation as well. Or where is the border between a usual and a serious game?? Is there one or is it based on capriciousness?? And "success of America's Army" is based on capriciousness too. How much money did they earn when selling it? How much players are there? How much popularity it has received? Was the game worth its expenses? and so on. Besides, isn't "The Sims" not a serious game and more successful??? And America's Army is the "highest profile"??? What?? How about you explain your thoughts before just adding them to link your article (which should be examined as well in my opinion). Please start collecting background information to present some facts as well.

First off, let me say how sorry I am that your question mark key is sticking. Second, please sign your posts (~~~ or ~~~~), even if you don't have an account. The signatures make it easier to keep track of who is saying what.
Next, yes I did write the serious game article. That's a nice piece of investigation you carried out to discover that. Naturally I want as many links to it as possible, but only appropriate ones.
Now, why did I say America's Army is a serious game? In the industry (the serious games industry), it is hailed as the most successful serious games to date. I know this, I am in the industry. I did not make AA, but know about it.
It is not successful in terms of revenue, it is given away freely. The US Army wasn't expecting to get any income from it. They are using it as a recruiting tool and it has been somewhat successful at that (numbers are hard to come by, but they say they are "pleased" with its effect). It is successful because of its penetration. Hundreds of thousands of people have downloaded and played it. This is exactly what the US Army wanted.
Serious games are not only to train people to perform certain tasks. AA is being used as a marketing tool and it is a serious game because it demonstrates to those interested what their first experiences in the Army may be like.
It is not a more high-profile computer game—I didn't mean to imply that. Of course, it doesn't even come close. It is the highest-profile serious game.
I hope I responded to all of your objections. If you have any more, please voice them here. Peace. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:35, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

I don't know the "serious game" company and I've never heard of it before you came up with it. I don't know what they're hailing there but if you could prove it plausibly, I could believe you. You see what I don't know often ends up with a question mark in my text. Even if the "serious games" company hails the game, it doesn't mean they're right. So I'd like to ask further questions. Success not concerning terms of revenue is vague and can be interpreted according to any POV. The army certainly wanted it to become as famous as Counter-Strike, which they have not achieved at all. Maybe they didn't think they'd achieve it. Success is the attainment of something desired or attempted. Who knows? If the army says they're "pleased", it does not mean they are. I certainly don't believe an organisation that claims all the rules of land warfare are included in Americas army but in reality hasn't included the Geneva Conventions. Sure, it's a game, but if they claim they did, it's a lie. And if they said they are "pleased", I'd like a source too if you want to convince. Now since it's all very vague, the success should not be included in the opening paragraph in my opinion. In History or Controversy, the indisputable success is included. According to your definition of a serious game, it could be worth asking if "The Sims" is not a more successful game. Now I'd like to talk about AAO as a serious game. I've asked for the border between a serious game and a usual game. If the definition is that serious games "train people to perform certain tasks", then every first-person shooter is a serious game because it trains the player to shoot better, to reload a gun, etc.. Then even No on lives forever is a serious game introduction the life of a spy and for example the life in Japan, Nolf 2 has much details that are in Japan as well. Or are these introductions to unrealistic? America's Army training certainly is unrealistic too, maybe MORE realistic, but still unrealistic. Where's the border? Also, if I remember correctly, the army claims America's Army doesn't teach to use a gun in real life. If I wanted to know how life of a soldier in the US army is, I'd ask for the money I'd earn first off all. That would be the first and among others main experience I'd need to know what the Army is like. I didn't learn much about the Army in the game which is my POV. Is the definition of a serious game capriciousness? You still haven't explained why it's the "highest-profile serious game". That's probably POV as well.213.6.36.130

Do you have any source to cite calling AA a "serious game"? How about a cite for it being the "highest-profile serious game"? Unless you do, I'd consider these statements original research. As a member of the industry, you may well regard AA as the highest-profile serious game, but as an encyclopedia, we can't incorporate this fact, even if you can prove it true, unless there are other sources which make the claim first. Wikipedia is not a primary source. anthony 警告 22:20, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Okay, unfortunately I cannot respond to each of your individual questions/complaintts/inquiries. I'll be selective:
  • There is no one "serious games" company. There are many. Probably the most successful one for now is BreakAway Games. They even have a website dedicated to just serious games, located here.
  • From GameDev.net: "America's Army, has become the poster child of serious games, showing what can be done and opening up new possibilities. Built on the Unreal Engine from Epic Games, targeting a demand for a realistic, team-oriented combat game, America's Army has been much more successful than the Army expected." Also, "America's Army... has become a goodwill ambassador to the world, showcasing American values of teamwork and loyalty to the world." Really, all I had to do was type in "america's army serious game" (no quotes) in Google and came up with over 10 pages of hits. Many relevant hits say pretty much the same thing.
I think I've demonstrated I didn't make this stuff up. I'd like to restore the deleted information, but I won't if it's going to ignite an edit war. Peace. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 08:41, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
Since no one has responded, I guess its okay if I put the reference to Serious game back in. If not, please discuss here. I will put the statement back in within a few days. — Frecklefoot | Talk 17:08, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
I support this. It fits the definition, IMO K1Bond007 18:51, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
No, sorry, but the definition of "serious game" is unclear. AA is NO simulation in my opinion because it does not simulate war. Look at Iraq! Compare these "games". THAT'S modern war. AA is just a Counter-Strike without violence and with some more realistic aspects and bugs and unrealistic aspects and meant for propagating a false image to children and teenagers in the hope that they would be blinded enough to fall for their unspoken and idiotic promises. If you call AA realistic, it is just your POV. Because it is not 100% reality, it is a matter of opinion if you call it more realistic even than Counter-Strike. Realism has no comparable value. Now, it is worse because it pretends to be realistic, which makes those who fall for that promise confuse it with reality - it misleads. I do not call something that is meant to mislead "serious".

I consider your definition of "serious game" crap, it's just an invention like the word "hacker" for players that cheat in the opinion of others. Why link that word and pretend it's more than bullshit? Let's see how the word applies to the made-up definition: AA, which simulates war as unrealistically as Counter-Strike, "[has not been] designed to be a training system[...]". (quote from a report by Michael Zyda (director of the developping studios of AA), Wardynski(America's Army project manager) and Russel Shilling(America's Army lead audio engineer))http://www.npsnet.org/~zyda/pubs/ShillingGameon2002.pdf

This quote is a contradiction even to your definition: "The main goal of serious games is to train users".217.185.104.200 17:18, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The main defintion is that the game is a simulation which no one objects to. It's listed everywhere including the America's Army website. While it doesn't technically TRAIN it TEACHES. The developers have fully recognized this especially with certain TRAINING COURSES such as the Medic's training etc. Read America's Army FAQ. Your statement above comparing hacker to "serious game" is absurd. You need to read that article. There are summits etc based on this emerging genre. Look it up, theres hundreds of websites on it. Including http://www.seriousgamessummit.com/ where they define the genre as: "..applications of interactive technology that extend far beyond the traditional videogame market, including: training, policy exploration, analytics, visualization, simulation, education and health and therapy." -- America's Army fits that definition. This website is also endorsed and sponsered by the U.S. Army's game. See http://www.seriousgamessummit.com/sponsors/ K1Bond007 19:18, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
the main definition is that the game is a first-person-shooter. You don't say "simulation" to first-person-shooters. Of course those who want to speak in support of the game glorify it as a simulation. Basically every game simulates something, every. Now where's the border? There is none, as no game is as realistic as reality and therefore never fully simulates reality.

I'd really be interested in what you learn from the game, I mean, learn in the sense that something useful is provided. Basically EVERY game teaches something, at least, for example that there are bad games. You still haven't explained why America's Army is a serious game but others are not. You could learn how to reload a "Desert Eagle" or something stupid in CS as well. You might just as well call CS a "serious game" as the borders are totally set capriciously. Or Doom3...62.52.37.170 21:28, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Frecklefoot and I have given enough sources claiming that it is. In addition, the game is used a lot internally for training and simulation purposes see: http://www.americasarmy.com/intel/fullstory.php?i=1215
"Leaders from the America's Army game team will be featured presenters and panelists in sessions that cover top line design, production, technology, and assessment issues related to the use of games in education, policy, national defense, homeland security, training and other non-entertainment sectors. Colonel Casey Wardynski, the America's Army game director and project originator will deliver a presentation entitled "Moving America's Army from Recruitment to Testing and Training Platform." The lecture will detail how the America's Army game technology has become a platform and tool for testing new equipment and training, and experimenting with tactics."
Theres no way you can refute this any longer. America's Army fits the definition, plain and simple. K1Bond007 23:14, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice you wrote back. Ow! Damn. America's Army is NOT a simulation and anything but a serious game! It is no more than a normal first-person-shooter - that's the category, not simulation. It's not to teach or train anyone! It's to give a good impression of the US Army, nothing else. No one would use it as training in the army. That would be like a soccer star playing a soccer game to train! A propos: why is a soccer game (like Fifa XXXX) not a simulation? It's certainly utmost closer to reality. In contrast to America's Army, it would 'accurately reflect the nature of the event it simulates'. So it must be a serious game, right? And although it wouldn't really teach or train, soccer games at least not try to mislead. No matter how many commercial websites you list contributing to the new serious word invention, it's still a commercial and unclear definition. What is a "serious" game and what is not remains a matter of opinion.217.185.104.130 20:33, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wow, another opinated comment. Awesome. But wheres your source? There are literally dozens of sources saying the game is a serious game INCLUDING THE U.S. ARMY, which also claims to use the game internally to train and teach soldiers. You apparently can't refute it without inserting your bias. If you can't show proof (evidence) then please abstain from this discussion. K1Bond007 21:46, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Am I God because you cannot disprove I am? No, and it's laughable, isn't it? Now, why don't they prove anything? That would require the truth? Yup. There are literally dozens of sources saying "hacking" is cheating in computer games. The meaning of the word should not be changed. Just because some commercial guys call it a "serious game", it still doesn't mean it is. Or we'd have to give "hacking" another idiotic meaning. The US Army, which also claims the game has MILLIONS of players, the same army team that says violence is discouraged, the same army that claims that less than 40% of the missions in the game depict simulated combat, the same army that claims the US army "is having individual strength and the support of an unstoppable team. It's you at your best. With training, technology and support, you will become stronger, smarter and better prepared for the challenges you face. You will gain invaluable skills, experience and the opportunity to use them while working in a challenging environment. Being a Soldier also means upholding the ideals set forth in the U.S. Constitution, and becoming a respected part of your community. You will discover a life filled with adventure and meet other smart, motivated people like you. Because the strength of the U.S. Army doesn't only lie in numbers, it lies in you, An Army of One." 

the same army that even claims they'll send the CIA and FBI after american children because they were cheating.... What is the army on americasarmy.com? A team saying anything that could help make the game sound better than it is. That's their JOB!

"Serious game" is a vague description which was newly invented by some company and does not even fit America's Army. To make it fit, either the game needs to be changed or the definition of the word. It would have to be "a 'serious game' is a first-person-shooter claiming to simulate reality but doesn't" and "Motivation: 1)Development costs, 2)High percentage of the target group, 3)Propaganda is effective. "Serious games (SGs) accurately misinform about the nature of the events they claim to simulate". and so on. The made-up definiton is just trying to magnify.

"If you can't show proof (evidence)[..]" Are we at court or what?? Did you know that you violated the law by posting a link to the site on americasarmy.com about "serious games" because that was prohibited by the disclaimer of americasarmy.com?

Your article, "Serious game", states: "[..]the main goal of a serious game is not to entertain[..]"

OK, let's be in court: Let the EULA give evidence in court.

"I hereby summon my first witness, Mr. EULA. Mr. EULA, what is the goal of the game?" Mr. EULA: "The Software has been developed for entertainment purposes only and is not designed or licensed for any other purpose." "Thanks, Mr. EULA, no more questions. You can ask the witness now, James."

If you don't believe him, you should have read the EULA before signing it. 62.134.104.249 13:46, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wow, what a load of BS. Why not just say "I'm biased towards this game and I disagree"? Please reread the article. It was changed about a week ago. While we may not be in court, we are mature enough that any opinion we have on any sort of discussion taking place here should be backed with proper evidence. Otherwise you're just spewing BS and crap. K1Bond007 20:08, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
Wow is right! All I wanted was a single sentence mentioning that it is the most successful serious game to date. I wasn't prepared for such a flame-fest. The fact it is the most successful serious game to date is undeniable. But I'm not going to start an edit war here--this article has enought fisticuffs going on already. If someone else wants to add this fact, please do. I don't have the bandwidth to justify my simple one-sentence edit any longer. Peace. — Frecklefoot | Talk 22:59, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

I think I've made myself clear and don't need to repeat myself till you accept it. You just do not want to accept it for personal reasons. Change your definition of "serious game" totally till it applies to AA, or change AA till it applies to the definition. "Serious game" is made-up industrial and a frail definition based on POV. A fact is not a matter of opinion. There's nothing else to add.217.185.104.234 13:29, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You've made it clear that you are against mentioning that America's Army is the most successul serious game to date. Do a simple Google search for "Serious Game" "America's Army" (quotes included) and you'll get 10 pages of hits, most mentioning that America's Army is a very successful serious game, some citing it as the most successful serious game. Here's a good one for you: "New take on the game of life". Anthony stopped complaining once I cited sources, you're the only one that seems unconvinced.
Were you actually in the game industry, you'd know about the Serious Games Summit taking place at the GDC this March. It is at least the third Summit of its kind. In fact, the US Army hosted the opening events for one of the summits because of—guess what—America's Army! Perhaps the term "serious game" is made up. But so what? It was constructed to describe a new category of computer and video games. I'm not going to change the defintion of serious game to make it fit just America's Army. America's Army already fits the definition. It is a serious game. I have the Internet and the Serious Games mailing list backing me up. Have you even read the serious game article lately? — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:01, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Oops, wrong word. I entered ' "America's Army" "worst game" '. I had 652 hits - "serious game" only has 289. Now that google is the most accurate encyclopedia or something and a valid argument for anything, we should name the game a synonym for fag (1.790 hits), rape (3.910 hits), crap (11.300 hits), porn (14.200 hits), gay (32.700 hits) or sex (45.000 hits). Yup, the game must be sex. The Internet seems to prefer backing me... Should anyone care because of the only 289 you had?? Hahaha, no! The game is PORN! Let's call it "the most successful crap" on the net instead. Do you see my point? "Eat shit, people! Billions of flies can't be wrong!" (by the way combined with "shit": 25.200 hits).

You cited sources. Big deal. But these sources neither have authority (it's just commercial), nor popularity. Nor do I see why the inaccurate defintion "serious game", which doesn't even apply America's Army, should be propagated here. America's Army is NOT a simulation! Nor is it designed for it. It's aim is NOT to train or teach either. I've said it all before. I won't say it again. After all you can read.217.185.104.145 18:27, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for injecting your bias again. Yet again no source, no evidence, only pure bias. You should feel proud for this. Perhaps we should seek the Wikipedia:Mediation Committee K1Bond007 19:51, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
Geez, sounds good to me. — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:56, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Oh! Sources! For what? And why me? YOU came up with that. Oh well. Bond. Do you know google.com? Use it. That should be enough for the first paragraph. 2. America's Army is a first-person-shooter, not a simulation. It's aim is to influence the players opinion about the army. "We want the whole world to know how great the us army is" or sth and so on, there are enough sourcves proving that. 3. It "[has not been] designed to be a training system[...]" (quoted from above). That's all the evidence needed, is it not? Is anth not clear??? I wonder why you can't accept it... or do you just want to make the discussion page bigger by requesting information again and again about the same thing? Why don't you just read again through what is above? All you can do is accuse of bias and jabber. You can oppose but not with arguments. Statement neeeds argument. You see? That's their fundament.

Oh do that committee or whatever. The problem is crystal clear. You know how weak your arguments are very well. Unless that committee isn't biased, you won't stand a chance.62.52.37.152 20:37, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's so obvious you have problems with America or the U.S. Army that you've for some reason chosen this game and this arguement to tout your beliefs. This isn't the place. This has nothing to do with the greatness of the Army or the lack thereof. IT'S A DAMN GAME. We write FACTS about the game. If you don't like it, if you can't handle it, LEAVE. Wikipedia needs less people like you. This is the most immature arguement I think I've ever been involved in and the sad thing is we've displayed enough sources that there should be no discussion about this at all, yet here you are - FIGHTING in the trenches against the tyranny of the "serious game". Enough is enough. This bullshit needs to end. One way or the other. K1Bond007 20:58, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Selected sources:

See? First allegations, then babbling. You can summarize what you said in ONE sentence: I've found 5 sources claiming it is a "serious game".

My reply: 1st commerical site: industry, which claims it is a "serious games industry" itself (biased)

2nd commercial site: AA developers, that are dishonest when it comes to the game's reputation (like stated earlier), claim their game was used for training and teaching => realism => positive reputation. (biased again)

3rd commerical: bias (US Army) sponsoring bias (Serius Games summit)...

4th commercial: editorial by two guy biased towards the game that have misunderstood sth "4m players" he was mislead too.... "Built on the Unreal Engine from Epic Games, targeting a demand for a realistic, team-oriented combat game, America's Army has been much more successful than the Army expected." Apparently he believes what the army (bias) says without doubting...

5th commercial: Shows that the Army sponsored it. (shows bias) (Now, so America's Army teaches? "All games teach," Jim Dunnigan declared)

6th commercial: lol does not even mention "serious game", only the name of "Serius Game Summit"

Is that all?!?! There are dozens of site claiming America's Army is the worst game ever. Now would you allow it to be described like that? No. But "serius game" is allowed, huh? => you're biased 62.52.37.155 21:54, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Reasons for changes

  • Officially the Army neither admits its recruitment or propaganda
  • next to propaganda its also a recruitment tool
  • I think "so-called" shouldn't be removed in the beginning of the "Game Play" paragraph. There's a difference between US Army in reality and US Army in the game. "So-called" would make clear that the game describes it like that and introduces a paragraph in which words such as "kill" or "injury" could be wrongfully interpreted if the reader doesn't understand virtual reality (this game) is described as reality.
    • it's about America's Army. Do you see CS portraying the "so-called GIGN"? Wareware 03:01, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You misunderstood me: the game is using terms that have a defineable meaning in reality like "US Army", "RoE", "Honor", etc. The meaning of these terms is overwritten and given a totally different meaning. If the article doesn't make clear the game claims is to be like that, it makes no distinction between reality and virtuality and is basically wrong and biased.If you don't make clear that the game calls it like reality, you indirectly claim the game represents the real US Army and reality, which may be right in your POV, but wrong in another one and therefore isn't objective. "So-called" is neutral and true at any rate and neither includes my POV, nor your POV. Either you use words to clarify the difference, or you use quotation marks (I'm not talking about the quotation marks in the source which only makes the word italic but those ones "text") to do so. Is ONE word to make it clearer too muched asked for?

    • How is the GIGN not "definable" in meaning in reality? Really, I doubt anyone would be stupid enough to believe that America's Army is gonna prepare for real service in the army Wareware 18:59, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You still don't get it, do you? Do you kill a player IN REALITY when playing the game? No, you don't but in the game, namely, in virtual reality you do. If you say a player controls a soldier of the US Army, it's a lie IN REALITY. But in VIRTUAL REALITY, the game says you do. The word "so-called" introduces a bit the sections in which from then on, something that happens in virtual reality is referred to as a matter in reality. Up to that point it was only talked about reality. That's why I think there should be at the very least one word describing the change.

  • "how well the player is at following appropriate ROE" is wrong because "how well is the player contributing to completing the objectives" includes the ROE and the game just notes if you violate the rules which means 'every destruction or killing by you of an objective which you are assigned to protect and especially every killing of fellow U.S. soldiers or their allies caused by your (friendly fire)'. In Edit summary I've posted the official description from the official site's FAQ.*"every injury or killing caused by your friendly fire on civilians" is definitely misleading and also belong to the ROE. The handful of Civilians there are in the game are ALWAYS an objective and you describe it as if there were special hostages to save. "Objective B: Do not injure or kill civilians" or so it says. Also: FAQ: "ROE means not firing upon your fellow U.S. Soldiers, and not attempting to destroy or kill an objective which you are assigned to protect." KILL an objective it reads. Can you kill a crate? No. A civilian which is part of your objective? Yes. Also: "each map has some set of ROE (e.g. do not harm civilians".
    • In radio tower the assault's objective was to specifically rescue hostages. Objectives don't have an effect on your ROE, and vice versa. It has an effect on score and honor. One's is mission accomplishment, one is mission conduct. Wareware 03:01, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You see? Civilians ALWAYS belong to the objectives. If you commit friendly fire or destroy/kill an objective (ROE), you contribute in a negative way to the achievements of objectives. Read the FAQ. I'll stick to that I said before. Wareware 18:59, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC) You get negative ROE when you harm a civilian. I've said in radio tower the hostages are there to be saved, not just part of general ROE Wareware 18:59, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC) There are no positive ROE. It just notes violations of ROE and that's what I made clear in the main article. Of course, you get negative ROE when you harm a civilian: they're part of the ROE, they're part of the objectives. It's not a special matter - you just killed/destroyed an objective by shooting one. That's JUST what I had got right in the main article.

  • it's necessary for understanding that the game contrasts the two forces and shouldn't be deleted therefore.
    • It's extraneous. Of course it's the two opposite forces. Is the US Army same as the OPFOR? I don't see how anyone is gonna be enlightened by this addition Wareware 03:01, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Of course the US Army is the same as OPFOR. It's just depicted in another way. And the contrasts these two forces.

      • That's explained in the US Army/OPFOR transformation. You're just adding extraneous stuff here. Wareware 18:59, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This section doesn't explain the how the transformation works concerning the contribution of points. And that's what the sentences makes clear.

  • I've removed "When zooming in on a target, the gun's iron sight or scope is brought up. This magnifies the target but also dramatically reduces peripheral vision." because of lack of relevance. In first-person shooters, you can usually snipe which does not mean you have to add two complicated, terminologic sentences to explain it. The article is not meant to be for UN weapon inspectors. Because "Jam" is unusual in FPS, it should be mentioned and I've added a sentence to make it clear.
    • How is it not relevant. Most FPS don't have 3D iron sights. CS doesnt have it. Most tactical shooters don't have it. Even Raven Shield doesnt have it. It's mentionable Wareware 03:01, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sure, but the main point is you snipe with them. The name and specific looks are irrelevant. It's more irrelevant as "Jam", as a Jam can occur with many weapons and is certainly more relevant than a technical describtion of ONE sniping process. Not everyone is gun nut and a weapon inspector, you see? If you are trying to spam the article, why don't you just describe EVERY weapon and EVERY single weapon detail? If you set the border between relevance and irrelevance that low, you could even do that crap.

    • Are you an idiot or what? Describing that the game has 3D iron sights is a lot less than describing every gun and its respective 3D iron sight. You're the one who's snowballing logic here, not me. As I said, most FPS, even tactical ones, don't have 3D iron sights. It's mentionable. Wareware 18:59, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Calm down before writing or just watch your mouth here even when furious. The second sentence only describes sniping in general and is thus TOTALLY irrelevant. I thought only the M4 has an iron sight because I mistook it with this laser dot, so I thought it was irrelevant as well. I don't give a damn about guns, so I didn't know. Now that I found out myself, I consider your first sentence as relevant and realized it in the main article as well.

  • I fail to see why "medium" should be more appropriate. Medium has connotations.
    • Like grover said in the bottom. Mediocre means medium to low quality. Medium can be applied to speed no problem. Is your english proficient enough to tell the difference? Has your teacher ever called you a medium student? Or a mediocre student? Think about it. Wareware 03:01, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I noticed what grover said before, realized he's right and changed it. You could have realized that change.

  • I've deleted "more methodical and" because it reflects your pov and describes the game as a lot more thorough and orderly than UT. I do not think so. In AAO there's intentional friendly fire, no real squad formation (although they claim there were), no admins, votekick-battles and more chaos than in UT. That's my POV.
    • It certainly is more methodical. You can't go rambo and running while slashing knives in this game like CS or UT. Wareware 03:01, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That's an exaggeration. In those games, the knife is weak and almost useless. In Americas Army you can rambo better than in CS or haven't you played with an RPK on pipeline for example? Besides more action doesn't mean less thorough and orderly. That's just your POV.

    • You can rambo with arctic sniper in CS. Can you do that in AA Are you blind or what? Wareware 18:59, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've said it before, I'll say it again. Having more action in some aspects does not mean it is less orderly or thorough. That's just your pov. If you like, you can say the game has less action which is certainly true and NPOV.

  • I've removed "a made-up language christened OpForeign" but used "made-up" because this languaged isn't christened at all but is actually made-up.
  • I've removed "Players paying great attention occasionally notice that weapons in enemy hands behave "wrongly", but the effect is subtle and does not affect gameplay much." because it's just a little and unimportent result from the long paragraph before. 6 sentences describing it is definitely too much. Aren't 5 enough? Again the weapon inspectors? ;)
    • It's mentionable since it's one peculiar aspects of this "everyone plays as US soldier" thing. Why delete? This topic was pretty hot and caused great confusion in the forums back when the game was released. Wareware 03:01, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've exlained why it should be deleted. Can you give a source to any hot debates in the forum? Actually in the forums there are dozens of threads about cheaters any day. It's probably the hottest topic but it's also irrelevant.

    • Forum search is disabled at the moment. But ask around and it was a pretty hot issue back then. Wareware 18:59, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I cannot prove what you said and there's absolutely no relevance. No proof and no relevance? Will be removed.

Look up the word mediocre in the dictionary. I will even post it here for you - Moderate to inferior in quality; ordinary. How is Americas Army's gameplay inferior and to what is it inferior to? Subliminal slice - Google this term and all I get is 1 result. Using it to describe propaganda doesn't make much sense and it should be removed. I also disagree with your gameplay edits but someone else can argue those. - Grover9 16:33, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Tell me, why are you inserting your POV all over the place? Are you a CS fanboy or just somebody who's vehemently anti-America? I fail to see the point of most of your edits, as they're confusing, extraneous, ...etc. Wareware 18:59, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC) Tell me, why are you inserting your POV all over the place and accuse me of doing just that? I haven't played CS for over a year and it was definitely not my favorite game. If the article has much to do with CS, it's because AA has much to do with CS, CS is AA's model. I'm not Anti-American. I've always found it crazy to rate an entire nation you only know partly. Besides, why should I be Anti-American??? Just because I don't like the game as much as you do??? Are you just trying to oppose me because you consider me Anti-Americanistic????? Weak. As weak as your pigheaded reverts when you're not COMPLETELY happy.

Reasons for my edits

1) The opposing team is officially called "OPFOR".68.32.176.48 "OPFOR" is still a word that is not used in normal English. It is not "generally known" as that. It is called like that by the army, it is actually army lingo. That needs to be made clear. "in certain situations specifically". On most maps you will find these describtion (terrorsits, insurgents), usually in the map descriptions. They're a denouncement and should give the player a political reason to kill them. The "OPFOR" team is referred to as "enemy", "terrorist forces" and "insurgents". The game describes the OPFOR as all of them. When they're described as "terrorist forces", they have the same model as an OPFOR on another map, which would then be referred to as "insurgent". This is smart. Describing insurgent=terrorist with the media all day telling about the insurgents in Iraq...See terrorist145.254.135.222 00:12, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

On OPFOR: You're correct...I made the mental link between "opposing force" and "OPFOR", but didn't clearly write it. How about "OPFOR (OPposing FORce)"? On Terrorist/Insurgent: It's fine with me to call it a denouncement, but I'd prefer if it's stated that OPFOR is a generic name, and different maps have names for the enemy in that particular map.68.32.176.48 04:33, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'd prefer OPFOR described as army lingo. Gary Webb described it as that and he's most likely been right. I also described it as "OpFor" ("Opposing Forces").62.52.37.132 23:37, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Talk of "army lingo" or "army talk" gives me a mental image of someone who wants to remind everyone that he knows army talk, but that's probably just me.68.32.176.48 23:08, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

2) Is ghosting officially cheating? Also, "betray" sounds POV to me.68.32.176.48 68.32.176.48 "Cheating" is POV in general. But most call it the gaining of an advantage which the developers do not want the player to gain. ... Sure, that's vague but it's realistic to think that this type of advantage is not intended by the developers. And when talking about "cheating", it should be included. It was included in "Gameplay" instead of "cheating" because I don't know why it should be mentioned TWICE or be left out at all? Instead of "betray" the word "expose" might fit, or "reveal". I'm not sure.62.52.37.132 23:37, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

On "cheating": I looked in the ROE and found this: "Official Servers are NOT allowed to be used for testing of cheats, hacks, or other exploitations not intended by our game developers." I guess ghosting fits in that category; I think I was wrong here. On "betray": "Expose" or "reveal" is okay with me.68.32.176.48 04:33, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"to tell the OPFOR useful information that would not be gained otherwise" Everyone reading this would think "what exactly?".145.254.135.222 00:12, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think ghosting could involve more than just giving away the location...Health and weapon, too, maybe...It would be easy to list all three, though.68.32.176.48 04:33, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I changed that a bit. It might be improved though.62.52.37.132 23:37, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It looks good to me.68.32.176.48 23:08, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

3) The camera can be moved all around the player; calling it third-person sounds misleading to me. Also, the viewpoints vary; there is not a set that can be called "the" given viewpoints.68.32.176.48 I don't know but the word "camera" sounds rather stupid to me. There's no camera and in fact it's only what a camera represents: a perspective. If it said "fixed", it would mislead IMO. "The" because there is a set. On unofficial servers you can often make use of the given viewpoints on a map. These viewpoints are fixed however.145.254.135.222 00:12, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

On "the": When I read "the given viewpoints", I read that as saying the viewpoints are the same in every situation...That might just be me, though. How about replacing the text in the article with something like this? "Depending on server configuration, ghosts will have the possibility of watching the rest of the round in one to three ways. The first, which is always available, provides a view of the game from the eyes of a specific ghost-chosen player on his team; the second allows the ghost to rotate his view around the same player; the third is from certain fixed viewpoints that the server administrator(s) chose."68.32.176.48 04:33, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree on that. But the server administrator doesn't choose the viewpoints: they're given. One, for example, looks upon the assault spawn, one on def spawn, one on an objective and so on.62.52.37.132 23:37, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I thought different servers have different viewpoints. If that's not the case, okay.68.32.176.48 23:08, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

4) I think Stryker to BTR-80 is worth mentioning. 68.32.176.48 The description of the transformation in general is too long in my opinion and should appear in "Gameplay". The Stryker affair was picked because it was just another example of this transformation.145.254.135.222 00:12, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm...How about putting this trimmed-down transformation bit in Game play? "One of America's Army's unusual features is the implementation of the teams; the soldiers, weapons, voices, and vehicles are all different for the opposite teams. Each player sees himself as an American soldier carrying American weapons, such as the M16A2, within a team of American soldiers. He also sees his opponents as foreigners carrying Eastern-bloc weapons, such as AK-47s (what the opponents see as an AK-47). The player's team members' audible messages are in English, yet he hears the opposition speaking words made up for the game.

Although only transmuted, an OPFOR weapon behaves differently to its US counterpart. For instance, if you use an AK-47, for you and your teammates the weapon is fully automatic, more powerful, but less accurate and louder than an M16A2. For your opponents, however, the same AK-47 still looks and sounds like their M16A2s, although the weapon is now more powerful and fully automatic only because it is in your hands."68.32.176.48 04:33, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I tried to do that but you might find too much was removed while I think it should be more. other article on the game described that transformation within one sentence whereas this summary needs many. It gets too specific in my opinion.62.52.37.132 23:37, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It looks okay to me, now -- I guess because the sentence that mentions vehicles is on its own line, it stands out more -- except I think not all OPFOR is masked or bearded.68.32.176.48 23:08, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

5) The game has some realism-enhancing features.68.32.176.48 I do know that but these were only details. I've thought about that too. If you listed EVERY realistic/unrealistic detail, it would take pages. I think it should be mentioned that the game has aspects that are more realistic than in other games but then again you'd have to list aspects that are more unrealistic. If you shoot into water in NOLF2, you see gushing. If you shoot at a lamp in Perfect Dark (a seasoned game for N64), it goes off amid realistic flickers. And the flickers light the environment realistically. If you shoot against a weapon, it flies away. If that weapon is in the hands of an enemy, he is unarmed and often gives up. If you shoot a rocket in a game whose name I forgot, the explosion makes a constant hole into the ground. If you shoot a bullet in Delta Force, it is affected by gravity. If you shoot something in many games, it gets destroyed. If you shoot a rocket against a chair in AA, what happens to the chair? Nothing. There are very many details that are realistic but just as many that are unrealistic. But I think it should be mentioned that the game is not realistic about the depiction of war, because the depiction of war is the BIG PICTURE.145.254.135.222 00:12, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Good point...How about removing the specific examples, but saying, "The game is designed to provide an accurate portrayal of Soldier experiences across a number of occupations", but, like all first-person shooters, it has its realistic and unrealistic features.?68.32.176.48 04:33, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That's not what the game was designed for. It's concern is to affect the image of the Army in a positive way.62.52.37.132 23:37, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I got the quote from http://www.americasarmy.com/support/faq_win.php#faq0 . 68.32.176.48 23:08, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

6) Not all the opponents are terrorists, and enemies at long range can be difficult to identify. 68.32.176.48 Instead of "opponents who are usually", I'd suggest "armed opponents".145.254.135.222 00:12, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The IF in particular can be difficult to ID at long distances (for me, anyway). How do you feel about removing "who are usually clearly" and leaving it at "identifiable"?68.32.176.48 04:33, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

When I hear "identifiable", I think about a corpse being diagnosed by the police so I picked "distinguishable".62.52.37.132 23:37, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Okay. 68.32.176.48 23:08, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

7) The jam information was gramatically incorrect.68.32.176.48 Yes, but your information was incorrect relating to contents. If you press the button for fixing the jam, the jam is NOT fixed. It just starts a process and this is what your sentence doesn't make clear in my opinion.145.254.135.222 00:12, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

How about "the player needs to press a button to perform an operation that fixes the jam"? The "start" bit was unclear to me.68.32.176.48 04:33, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Now a surgery comes to my mind ;) I think "process" is better. ... Or would "action" fit? Just change it if you prefer something else. My English isn't that good.62.52.37.132 23:37, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Action" is okay with me.68.32.176.48 23:08, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

8) Call of Duty was not the first or last game to include zooming; I don't think it needs to be mentioned.68.32.176.48 I know it was not, but it's not relevant. The zooming of COD is very similar and. "and the player must move slower". This is ambiguous, many would think "what if he doesn't move slower? Will he stumble?". "while using the sights, the view zooms in slightly" What do you mean by that? 145.254.135.222 00:12, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

On COD: Oh, okay; I thought that was a "I know another game like this, so this must have copied it" sentence; that makes sense to include for readers who have played COD but not AA. It's also similar to MOHPA's...See below. On slower: Okay. On zoom: I mean that in addition to the sights being brought up, objects in the distance appear a bit closer. How about: "Every firearm in the game has either iron sights (that funtion similarly to those in Call of Duty and Medal of Honor: Pacific Assault) or a scope; while using the sights, a zoom effect somewhat enlarges objects in view and the player is forced to either move slowly or stop using the sights"?68.32.176.48 04:33, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good. But I changed the second half of the sentence to make it clearer in my view.62.52.37.132 23:37, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It looks good!68.32.176.48 23:08, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

9) The grenade effectiveness sentence was longer than necessary.68.32.176.48 Ok145.254.135.222 00:12, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

10) The OPFOR uses different grenades. See pages 165 to 167 of the America's Army Manual if you want proof that these are the correct names..68.32.176.48 Maybe on the paper, but come on, that's ridiculous. They have the same model, the same range of exploding, etc.. They don't vary AT ALL. It's not worth spending any words on the names if they're just the same.145.254.135.222 00:12, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm...Are the OPFOR grenades the same in the game? I can't remember ever staying around to observe. Since I took the time to look them up, anyway, do those few words need to be removed?68.32.176.48 04:33, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In the game the US grenades are 100% the same as the OPFOR, all the three of them. But the objection I have to them is that these other names create the image that the game has more type of grenades than it actually has, which is why I removed it. I can understand that it must bother you because you've spent your time to find out the names. However, thank you for that investigation.62.52.37.132 23:37, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OPFOR fragmentation grenades have a different model, but I'm not sure about the rest.68.32.176.48 23:08, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

11) The cheating sentence begins with "despite"; "by contrast" is not needed in the middle of the sentence. 68.32.176.48 22:40, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC) Ok145.254.135.222 00:12, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Editing

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=America%27s_Army&diff=9599110&oldid=9596337

"While the game fundamentally fits the definitions of propaganda and advertisement, many players disagree over which label fits better"

was changed to

"While the game fundamentally fits the definition of a playable and subliminal piece of video game propaganda and recruiting tool, a lot of players do not believe it is."

Please do not insert opinions, this is NPOV. My edit laid out, with links, the definitions of both labels, and allowed the reader to go to them and form their own opinion.


The definition of words is not a matter of opinion. Links to both definitons are already in the text as well. This is NPOV, only. Your version equalized them.217.185.104.134 23:19, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It fits both defititions, and only one has a negative connotation. Linking to both definitions is only fair, it's the only part of the article where both sides are presented in close proximity. Please do not remove my edit, your edits are one sided and NPOV. -GregNorc (talk) 23:04, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

You do not get it. You'd never say advertisement to it, just like you'd never call any speech by Goebbels advertisement. History books are not POV, you see? Yet, they call propaganda propaganda instead of advertisement. If you said advertisement in the article instead, it would be POV because propaganda is the word that applies primarily here and because you'd have equalized the two words as if they fitted the same. Of course they do not.217.185.104.234 13:28, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That is your opinion, not a fact. Propeganda implies lies. For example, Germans telling their people that Jews ate the babies of "aryans". Or everyone's favorite Iraqi regime member stating "We will crush them all" (paraphrased) I'm removing the entire phrase, and posting a request for comment. Will edit it back in whichever more people agree with.-GregNorc (talk)

Propaganda does not necessarily imply lies as a matter of fact. It may be. Read above what was written about propaganda.62.52.37.242 23:03, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please log in before making comments, it looks quite strange when someone with no other contriubutions suddenly is entering opinions in a dispute. -GregNorc (talk)

Another entry to consider: promotional item http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promotional_item

It mentions nothing about giving away promotional items as "propaganda". -GregNorc (talk)

Oh, please! How about we call it a flier? I haven't found any intellectual article claiming it is a promotional item. A game is not even an item. Besides, promotional means advertisement. 

Most of the discussion page is about why it is propaganda. Why don't you just read it?62.52.37.160 23:44, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Saying it's propeganda is an opinion, not a fact. 64.8.81.232

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:America%27s_Army&oldid=9703747"