Talk:America's Army

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Computer and video games, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.	CVG Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid	This article is on a subject of Mid priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
CVG To-do: edit  Gaming Collaboration of the week: X-Men vs. Street Fighter Expand: New CVG Articles, List of Nintendo trademarks, Normality, Pac-Man World 2, Operation Flashpoint: Elite, Call of Juarez, Galactic Civilizations II: Dark Avatar, Ford Street Racing, Betrayal at Krondor CVG Peer Review: Super Transformation, Turok: Dinosaur Hunter, Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games, Yoshi, Black Isle's Torn, Rise of Nations, Kirby (Nintendo), PlayStation 3, Mega Man Zero 4, Luigi Cleanup: Shiny Entertainment, Age of Mythology, Serious Sam II, Mario Kart: Double Dash!!, Ted Price, Betrayal at Krondor Merge: Current Events (Update needed!) / Deletions / Essential articles / Workshop / Magazines Assess and Prioritise articles (Log)

This article has been cited as a source by a media organization. See the 2005 press source article for details. The citation is in: "How the seductive power of video games is being harnessed to push deadly agendas" (July 11, 2005). The Calgary Herald. [1].

Nick Lewis of The Calgary Herald (from an e-mail replying to an e-mail which asked whether parts of his article come from Wikipedia's article on America's Army): "I absolutely used the Wikipedia-article for reference and used the Zyda-quote in my piece. The Wikipeda-article was the most comprehensive piece I could find, which is a credit to you and the other writers involved."

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Archive1 - Propaganda Archive2 - Various discussions Archive3 - Various discussions

Contents 1 Version 2.7 Overmatch 2 Overhaul 3 Constructive discussion 4 Image copyrights 5 Reverting 30 March 2005 6 Mediaright 7 "Justification" 8 Advocate Request 9 POV-ectomy 10 Community. 11 Word choices for realism 12 Reverted edits 13 Well done 14 Teen rating 15 86.132.35.147 16 Nightbeast 17 possible Self-promotion abuse 18 Mobygames links 19 As for today it is neutral enough 20 Larger context of the recruiting process 21 History 22 Don't ask, don't tell 23 Concerning changes by User:Ablenet and User:RememberMe 23.1 Changes in header 23.2 About the extraction of the console version (see America's Army: Rise of a Soldier) 24 OPFOR vs. Enemy 25 Grammar 26 Questions 27 Serious Bias 28 Linux and Mac discontinued 29 I for I research 30 Abbreviations and whatnot 31 External links 32 Main section of the game?

[edit] Version 2.7 Overmatch

The new version (2.7) is out and the article should get some updates in the next few weeks

[edit] Overhaul

So here it is: a mixture of all edits I found reasonable together with a lot more information. It took me several days and I had a look at all the other edits. If there are linguistic mistakes, please fix them. If you have problems with the content, don't revert anything, Ele, as you're always telling me because I've reconsidered ANY edit and will give you reasons for ANY change. Just talk and I will consider any statement with an open mind and reply. I will not include more information because to me, the article is brilliant now, and so I will try to prevent any drop of quality for the article in future. After all I can only say that working on it was worth it but since it completed in my opinion, I will not create a further total overhaul.

Before I forget: if you think information about weapons and maps should be included, I can only say "RTFM". Yes, installed with AA is an over 200 pages manual with all the trivialities a player could want to know. Likewise there are explanations for the other edits as well. Just ask me if anything else doesn't appear rational at first glance. My ICQ Number is 201-401-028 in case you want a quick replyNightBeAsT 22:49, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC

24.60.104.71 02:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)its been anounced by the devs that 2.8 will be the last patch using UE2.5, then they will move on too aa 3.0, you are right though, I do know that there is a UE3.5 in the making, as well as a UE4.0 which is still only in its basic brainstorm stage.

[edit] Constructive discussion

I see that you've had problems with edit wars and disagreements here. There's plenty of commitment to this article and I'm sure that if all of you could just act a bit more civil and refrain from making personal attacks, you'd probably be better off. Remember: there are no excuses for making personal attacks.

Instead of just reverting one another and complaining about things like grammar or poor judgement about including facts, fix the problems yourselves. No one likes to hear complaints about mistakes all the time. Try to be constructive in your criticism and try to reach consensus instead of bickering about who's 100% right.

Now don't take this as an excuse to start fighting over who did or said this or that. Start over instead and try to summarize your problems and see what can be done to fix them. If you just stick to the principles of civility and Wikipedia:WikiLove, I'm sure you can reach an agreement on how to make this a better article. Peter Isotalo 23:51, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyrights

There are many images on this page which have no source and appear likely to be copyright violations. Please note all sources and justify anything considered fair use. Images that cannot be proven to be legal to use on Wikipedia may otherwise listed on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images for deletion. 119 06:36, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Done (except for two or so screenshots of "Gameplay". These are made by me). "Justification" is a good start in general. It is the problem of the article and this discussion page.

Let me give a short introduction. I've been involved in this article for roughly 5 months now and it could be stable by now if the way to justify things had been changed. I've played video games for 11 years, America's Army for 15-16 months and had an eye on the game in general for two years so you could say I know a bit about this all. I've been involved on the entire discussion page and know its outcomes of the arguments, and I know the discussion pages vicious circle: it's way too long. That's why new persons just ignore the discussion page, the articles about the game, and start to edit, making the article an unstable moving train of thought.

When someone excludes the answer to the Why-question concerning the game from the short summary paragraph (why did they spend millions? why do they keep up the project? why did the game get successors? answer: the game successful propaganda and recruiting tool, which was discussed elaborately in this page here and successfully ignored during the edit), then I disagree and do I need to justify that? I've tried to explain that these "millions" of players the devs proclaim to have, is a serious and successful misinformation (you could say it mirrors the game) and I justified that twice already. Now I probably need to justify it for the third time since no person would care a damn to get informed about the game before starting to edit. I mean, how could I demand that a user shall read through something for e.g. an hour when I needed 10 hours to write that??? The edit the user would do would ignore the discussion, an ignorant edit. And when I edit it back, the user will demand a justification for that instead of giving a justification for his change. Some user would even find it too unfair to have to justify the edit, and just go on editing (no names) and no matter what you try to explain, you get ignored.

The perfect example that anyone without any knowledge of the game can understand would be "series of games". America's Army for PC has, like so many other programs, patches and addons, other versions, the POV-term would be updates. You don't call two versions of the same program "two programs". If the developers release a new version, you can't even say "I keep the old version" because the old one will soon not be playable anymore. So you can say everything but "series" to the game. Since it is merely a mod by developers for UT, it can qualify for "game" at best.

So this above is ONE justification against editing "game" to "series of games", an explanation against an unreasonable edit that cost less than 5 seconds. One of hundreds edits. Wikipedia says: "Be bold!" but it also says don't be reckless. If you want any information about the discussion page, the game, the research papers, the entire AA article, please ask me via my talk page, discussion page, email or icq. I'm so sick of the article's unstableness. Get it right, then get it written.NightBeAsT 17:34, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting 30 March 2005

First off, NightBeAsT please note that no one owns an article, and in my opinion you have no support in saying "I won't justify why I reverted, justify why it should be changed!" Now, reasons why the version you revert to cannot stand:

• POV: distributed free by the US Army as a global public relations stunt to present the current US Army in a glorifying way so as in part to help raise the US Army recruitment numbers
  • No opinion but fact and it answers the WHY question. Not answering the question would be biased. Say: AA has been alleged to be a first-person shooter if you like weasel speech
• POV: America's Army is primarily playable and subliminal video game propaganda and a virtual recruiting tool
  • No opinion but fact and it answers the WHAT and WHY question. Excluding them would be as biased as above.
• POV: America's Army falls into the subgenre of an online infantry wargame and serious game. Contrasted to reality, it is relatively authentic in terms of visual and acoustical representation, especially pertaining to weaponry, but not modern war. Unlike Special Force and Under Ash, the game does not belong to the category of realist games.
  • Please explain in what way and why it is POV.
• POV: The game also extends the military entertainment complex
  • DOES IT NOT??? Read the external links.
• POV: globally promotes a one-sided and self-glorifying message about this army with its interventions
  • The world's premier landforce fighting terrorism and for freedom. Isn't it self-glorifying? Isn't it one-sided?
• POV: Although America's Army claims to represent the real Army and gives largely true information, it contains partisan bias and fails to paint a complete and balanced picture of the US Army along with its conflicts, mainly playing down or excluding negative facets of the Army.
  • Do you know sf_Abu_Ghraib, the new map? Doesn't exist. Nor do civilians on the maps (with ONE map exception). Nor does the readme's of the game or the game itself include traumas, crippled soldiers, cries of fear, hostages, ambushes, verbal abuses, hysterical soldiers, ugly soldiers etc. Where are such things in that "accurate portrayal of soldiers experiences"? My opinion?
• POV: Research papers of four different universities that have analysed America's Army all confirm that the game is propaganda
  • You can remove that sentence.

Please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view for information on the "non-negotiable" requirement set down that articles not state opinions as fact. Furthermore, it's just poor writing to define something primarily by comparison to another thing ('AA is similar to Counter-Strike'). That won't explain anything to people unfamiliar to this topic, nor stand up to time. You've also overwritten a lot of formatting and general writing corrections. 119 18:30, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I know very well that I've no right at all for the articles and if I thought so, why would I delete so much of what I contributed, entire sections. Like I said, should I justify why I reverted before you justify why you change? Justifiying why something needs to be changed makes it crucial for the contributor to have GOOD reasons. "Good" in the sense of reasons that you could use as arguments in a debate. Change for the sake of changing certainly isn't a good reason and would be prevented by that rule. I've already read through that Wiki:NPOV twice. Sure, many people don't know CS but then again 15 times or so as many gamers. There's no other game that similar and it tells that it was the model and how the gameplay works at the same time. It's impossible to describe the gameplay in the summary understandably in other ways. Also please justify your claims instead of just saying 'this and that is POV, now disprove it.'NightBeAsT 19:18, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nice references but that doesn't justify the rest. You changed the version, I changed it back, you changed that back.... what's your point?? Edit war??NightBeAsT 20:24, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mediaright

A New Beginning

Let's begin. Hi. I'm a volunteer. First, I apologize for deleting everything, but it's for the best in the long run. I have played AA for a while now but am a reasonable human being and not a fanatic. This article has had many problems from the start to the present, including this new version. There has to be a new organized dabate about all of this. Ok. One that takes into account everything. Here's how it's going to work. Below there are sections for each issue involved. If a new one comes up, feel free to add it. I'll start by adding my comments. Please add another block for any other non content related issues. Sorry. Thanks.

More vs. Less Content -Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of information. Not a database of edited articles. Information is our goal and under no circumstances should information be compromised just because of space or feeling that it isn't useful to anyone. If you write it, they will come. It's a sure thing at one point or another.

Article Splitting: Gameplay and Game Development

Article Splitting: AA1 vs. AA SP

Once again, I'm sorry. This was drastic but needed.

[edit] "Justification"

Now here is the list of explanations for why most of the sentences I wrote spending 5days should be kept rather than "new" changes. Probably I spend more time on the explanation than you on the edits. I'll also restore "my" version, which includes recent changes of other contributors, again. Why justify that something should not be changed, when it is more reasonable to demand a justification that something of a version containing outcomes of discussion should be changed totally. Stableness of an article is an aspect of a great article according to wikipedia. I've always included reasonable changes of other contributors. You? You just reverted, alleged the other version of POV, failed to explain why it should be POV, reverted again, alleged again, failed to explain again. Really fair...

Changes:

1. Why delete "This article is about the computer game America's Army". It is what America's Army is in one word: a computer game. It also explains that the article is about this game instead of the real army. Is there a faster way of explaining it to the reader?
2. Why deleting that the game was developed by the US Army and some NPS scholars? Should the reader be tricked into thinking the game was developed by some independent institute called "MOVES Institute"? "The MOVES institute" is just a name for a little part of the army, not a different organisation, and might therefore mislead.
3. I count 4 links for "US Army" on one screen. Please Make only links relevant to the context. That's why I've not linked many things that used to be. The article was overlinked. Why revert that too?
4. It makes no sense at all to write US, then U.S., then US etc. Keep consistency! No matter if you like U.S. or US (where's the difference except for two unnecessary dots?), they have the very same meaning and it's totally pointless to exchange these words if they don't need to be changed. Never change for the sake of changing. Should every reader who has read the article just exchange the words just because he loves dots? Then comes the next one who hates dots and changes them and so on. Same with the dates. July 4, 2002 or 4 July 2002 are changes that make no sense and are only preferences of one's own point of view. Stableness belongs to the characteristic features of a great article, not a train of thought. Some subpage of wikipedia says US should be spelt U.S. while USA should be spelt USA. That's why I changed them all to U.S.. Why revert a jumble of US-U.S.-US-US?
5. Why write "Tactical shooter". Tactical shooter is not a subgenre of first-person shooter, but a vague definition of sth that only MAY include fps. It is more unknown than "FPS" and more vague. You might just as well then use "serious game", "computer game", "propaganda", "Advergame" or whatever for "genre". So which can be used to keep "genre" NPOV? If you click on the link to "genre", you see what only fits: "First-person shooter".

Why did Bond not recognize that? I almost forgot. How long should this child's play continue, Bond? You're just faking support of versions that I disapprove of not because sth is wrong with them... but because I disapprove of them. You did not revert "America's Army is the best simulation" because although it is POV and would be deleted in the German version of this article within ONE minute, you knew I wouldn't like the sentence. Indeed, you even reverted Ele's version twice. But apart from that, brilliant info box, Bond.

1. Why delete " (AA)"? It is the abbreviation for "America's Army". Even the cover proves that. Why delete that?
2. Why delete propaganda and recruiting tool? They're the reasons for the game, the answer to WHY for the game. It is without one of the most important questions a reader could have, if not THE most important. Excluding the question would without any doubt make the article completely biased, I told you. If you feel it doesn't fit propaganda, read through the first two archives of the talk page and the definition of propaganda. I'm sure as hell not going to spend another 100kb of text for every new contributor one that issue. If you like the term "alleged case of", use it for every picture you find for propaganda and see if this POV term. Or how about this: "911 is an alleged case of a human being". You see how it sounds? But without any points accusing me of POV twice and using it as an excuse to restore real POV. Sorry but this hypocrisy inflames me.
3. Why delete the fact that it is fully financed by taxes? It's nowhere else in the article.
4. Why mention the Navy in the opening paragraph? Are they important AT ALL? I put them to history where they will still get more space than the lack of relevance should actually allow.
5. Why delete the short description of realism in America's Army. The game is a statement - no matter if you regard AA as an accurate portrayal of reality or an intentional misrepresentation of reality. It is only intended as a statement in the guise of a game, not simply as a game, no one would spend million of dollars for a game without any intention, and the game's intention is delivering the statement. Now, a statement can only be between true and false. What is true, represents reality - it is realistic, it is truly. What is untrue, is unrealistic. What is in truth is in reality. I've tried to keep the description of reality/truth in America's Army fair. Is it not?
6. Why only write "inspired by CS"? I've tried to describe the extremely close connection between the games months ago till the fact that the devs say they had the game actually taken as model convinced all. Why play that down by words such as "inspired".
7. Why put the game's popularity away? It needs no section. What should that section all include???? In the otherwise idiotic and uninformative (IMO) CS article that was called a good example of video game article, popularity is also summarized in the first section. Also your depiction of popularity neglected the contrast between the devs' "number of players" and the real number of players.
8. Why delete the picture of training? Compared to the only 2-3 hours a player would spend on training, the multiplayer part is totally dominating (this can be seen in the number of average "honor" (34). However, I think the proportion still deserves a picture. The picture taken depicts the first training level, the level that really everyone who has played the game must have seen. The article surely should not become a picture book, but pictures enliven the text. Just look at propaganda. Beautiful, isn't it? It's certainly one of the reasons why it became a feautured article (see its talk page).
9. Picture description: Why did you revert "Difference in depiction of the same player, the left as the "US Army" and the left as "OPFOR"? What's right then? Such changes/reverts just prove that you're ignoring what I edit.
10. Doesn't "round-start of the game's most often played map" explain more than "User interface during gameplay"?
11. Why did you revert V.I.P.? Longer words, such as USA should be written without dots in Wikipedia according to the same source that said US should be written with dots.
12. Why is the professor suddenly only "of the NY University"? Should the reader be tricked into thinking it is just a student of the university?
13. Why did you delete the correct interpretation of what Galloway said? Leaving out negative aspects of the US Army would be one way of intentional lack of realism. What about the fidelty of content or the restricted code? You didn't read through the text, did you?
14. Why did you include the sentence about Hitler? Was he crucial to understand the next sentence? Anyway. It further demonstrates the propaganda behind so I left it like it.
15. Why did you change that about military entertainment complex? Three or four sources of academic articles included that aspect, and isn't it logical???

NightBeAsT 19:34, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Advocate Request

A participant in this discussion requested an advocate, which may be of benefit to many users in this discussion. If it was you you didn't sign your request so please see it for more info. If you are interested in the service of an advocate please see the AMA page. --Wgfinley 19:28, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV-ectomy

This article is in need of a major POV-ectomy. I changed the opening sentence which was obvious POV pushing. Readers should make up their own mind whether a video game for recruiting is a good use of their tax dollars and whether or not that is a good thing. The replacement is factual and neutral and allows readers to do just that.

I'll look at it some more but this appears to be a pretty hot dispute. That said, the POV pushing in this article as it currently stands is blatant and obvious.

Positions regarding the game being a propaganda tool are adequately covered in the "Controversy" section although some polishing is needed in that section as well.

I also added the NPOV tag as quite clearly there is a raging NPOV dispute on this article and that needs to be noted for anyone visiting it or editing it. --Wgfinley 19:35, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Community.

Is it possible that an addition to the article be made that talks about the community that has sprung up around the game?

[edit] Word choices for realism

Realism is defined as, among other things, "fidelity in art and literature [and computer games] to nature or to real life and to accurate representation without idealization". Realist in most cases is a noun which usually refers to a person who holds beliefs that are accurate without idealizing. When used as an adjective, it usually is applied to something associated with that type of person, as in "the realist movement" or "realist art". Realistic is an adjective that modifies a noun having the qualities described in the definition for realism. The essay on "Social Realism in Gaming" tries to draw a distinction between "realistic-ness" (not a real word) and social realism. To do so, the author has invented new uses for existing words. I do not wish to diminish Galloway's core thesis: that a game can be very realistic in terms of rendering visual and aural reality, while ignoring other important aspects of a virtual experience that give it verisimilitude. Applying existing terms in new ways is common in thesis papers, but using realist as an adjective alongside realistic is no more valid than business-speak turning solution into a verb and using it alongside solve as in "if we solution this dispute quickly we can work to solve other problems." –DeweyQ 16:53, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to change it. I'm not sure if you're completely right there but I have no time to check it today or tomorrow and your edits haven't been bad so far. I read the essay ca two months ago. If I come to a different conclusion after reading the analysis and the debate here again, we'll still be able to resume the discussion. But please not just now.NightBeAsT 19:51, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reverted edits

Now that was strange. I reverted the edit that called the game "propaganda", but it showed me as reverting it so that it said propaganda... that's weird. Thanks, Wgfinley. Linuxbeak | Desk 04:33, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

NP, I'm hoping this version will be accepted, I can see the argument that it is propaganda but to just out and out call it as such is not NPOV IMHO so I tried to split up the developer claims from the critic claims, hopefully this will satisfy all concerned. --Wgfinley 05:22, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

There's a difference between "to be" and "to charge" (= to accuse of a crime). If "sth is sth" is true, and it is replaced by "sth is charged by critics to be sth", then I cannot see the neutrality of it. Why not go to the article propaganda and change all examples of propaganda to accusations of propaganda (eg "North Korean propaganda showing a soldier destroying the United States Capitol building" -> "North Korean poster showing a soldier destroying the United States Capitol building charged to be propaganda")? Let's see how they will react to it.NightBeAsT 10:51, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I would like to know how someone could classify the game as "propaganda". I personally play this game, but it's not like I have any intentions on joining the Army. Linuxbeak | Desk 12:37, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Both archives contain information on that:

Archive1 - Propaganda

Archive2 - Various discussions

The definition might also help (Propaganda). I won't start over. I'm not a record always turned on for the benefit of newcomers.NightBeAsT 12:51, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like someone here isn't assuming good faith. It appears that you are a major part of the above conversations. I still don't agree with the term "propaganda", but I can assure you that someone else will revert it. I'm not going to start an edit war over something as silly and stupid as this. Linuxbeak | Desk 13:00, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

And who are you calling a newcomer? Seems like virtually all your edits are to this article alone, and you don't even break 500 edits. It seems like you're using this article as your personal soapbox. But here I go not assuming good faith; oh dear. Linuxbeak | Desk 13:05, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Oh my, don't take it personally. I meant "newcomer to the article", which you certainly are. There have been a lot of people involved in the article and usually not newcomers to Wikipedia at all. I'm not a newcomer to Wikipedia either although my edits with the account didn't start till November last year or so. That's because I went without an account all the time, which has advantages (e.g. anonymity due to changes of IP), as well as disadvantages (one's authority is immediately undermined because IPs are often seen as vandals and you do not have a watchlist). I'm still not using an account in the German wikipedia by the way although I've edited for about half a year already (mainly improving the articles' language). I don't attribute the article to me at all. Just feel free to edit but make sure it doesn't conflict with discussions. Be bold, but not reckless.NightBeAsT 13:33, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Ah, okay; I understand now. Okay, sorry for jumping to conclusions. I don't agree with the propaganda term, personally, but I suppose in its literal meaning it's correct. Hi, by the way. :-) Linuxbeak | Desk 17:45, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

When you don't agree with "propaganda", you have a point because the term is nowadays usually said when disapproving of sth, but it remains true and has no real synonym because advertisement doesn't apply. The developers, of course, use euphemisms, especially "strategic communication". [2]

This expression is not wrong, but expresses approval. Propaganda expresses disapproval, it is a pejorative. I think it would be fair/neutral if we write something like "America's Army is, like critics would call it, a primarily a playable propaganda and recruiting tool, or, like the army would put it, a strategic communication" or sth like that. That would merge a rather disapproving view with a rather approving one.NightBeAsT 18:28, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

When the previous consensus was reached there didn't appear to be much discussion about it (think you and one other person engaged in it) there is now. As you said yourself, propaganda is perjorative and unless obvious using it unattributed is not NPOV. The wording is simple, some people think it's propaganda, the developers claim it's a recruiting tool. Fair, attributed views and NPOV. As far as use of the word "charge" I think it's use is appropriate but I would be happy to change it to "allege". There are many different definitions of the word charge (i.e. I don't think the Charge of the Light Brigade was in a courtroom). --Wgfinley 04:27, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

How dishonest of you to play down the discussed truth to unproven claims ...

'to allege': to state sth as a fact but without giving proof

'to charge': to accuse sb puclicly of doing sth wrong or bad; (formal) to accuse sb formally of a crime so that there can be a trial in a court of law

What is "proof" in your opinion then? Right, I couldn't give a reference to the Bible and God remained quiet too. Something that fits the definition can be stated as a fact rather than an accusation. "Propaganda" is not defined subjectively, which is why it can be stated as a fact. True! Consensus is not affected by bias at all! After all, "propaganda" will always be tried to exclude while expressions such as "best simulator" were kept. If you like, you can write the game has been accused of destroying the entire planet Earth, which would be right once sb has accused it of doing so. "The game is destroying our planet completely"!!! Oops, now I have said it making the accusation valid. But does it destroy the planet?! Don't you tell me you didn't know that an accusation may be the truth just like it may be false. If you're interested in deceiving with language, do that at propaganda telling them to replace "be" with charge/allege/claim/whatever to be. But I guess it's about entering an opinion into the article. Interestingly you didn't write "has been alleged of being a serious game/first-person shooter/authentic in terms of visual and acoustical representation" or anything.NightBeAsT 11:24, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Dishonest? I'm not being dishonest at all, half of your rant doesn't even make much sense. The legal definition of charge means to accuse of a crime but, as I said, there are many other definitions of the word in common usage. Wordnet has the following when used as a verb:

2: blame for, make a claim of wrongdoing or misbehavior against; "he charged me director with indifference" (syn: accuse)

5: assign a duty, responsibility or obligation to; "He was appointed deputy manager"; "She was charged with supervising the creation of a concordance" (syn: appoint)

7: make an accusatory claim; "The defense attorney charged that the jurors were biased"

21: attribute responsibility to; "We blamed the accident on her"; "The tragedy was charged to her inexperience" (syn: blame))

Almost all of the above work for this sentence. the difference between calling somthing "propaganda" and calling something a "serious game" is that one term is clearly perjorative as you yourself have stated and one is not. You are introducing opinion into the article when you continue to put propaganda in there with no attribution as to its source or proof it qualifies as such. It's POV pushing and doesn't belong without proper attribution and presetation of the dispute as is done later in the article. --Wgfinley 21:44, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Well done

To those of you who have managed to prevent any revert wars regarding the term propaganda for so long, I salute you. Andre (talk) 05:20, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Teen rating

How come a game like this gets a Teen rating, as it is a instrument for recruiting - therefore manipulating the opinion of a young person who still has to develop his own opinion about Army? --Abdull 21:57, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

• ESRB ratings have nothing to do with the moral content or "message" of a game. Civilization III, for example, is rated E for Everyone, even though the targeting of civilians and the annihilation of opposing cultures is a perfectly viable way to win the game. Compare to things like Doom, where you only kill the forces of evil. Civ 3 doesn't show graphic violence, Doom does. Doom, therefore, is rated M. The fact that America's Army has POV has absolutely nothing to do with it's ESRB rating. Furthermore, other Teen-rated war games, such as Call of Duty and Medal of Honor, also influence people's opinions. For that matter, lot's of other media has messages in it. America's Army doesn't "manipulate" the opinions of teenagers any more than political music, books, TV shows, or movies. It shows the army's message in the form of an entertaining game, and teenagers make up their own minds as to the truth behind it.-LtNOWIS 18:45, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 86.132.35.147

People like self-proclaimed 'NightBeAsT' seem to want to force their own polticial views on people all the time. They are so hypocritical it's amazing. See Talk:Kuma\War for an example of his exploits..--86.132.35.147 00:40, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Funny, an IP claiming to be from the UK alleges anti-Americanism. Normally only people who feel a country is misrepresented come from that country. How many times have I touched an article mainly dealing with America? Almost only this and other games? Maybe that's because I've actually played that game for (two?) years and that was also the first article I edited in the English wikipedia. I've never been to America, I don't really know or care about them either. I'm not hostile towards ANY nation, I hate generalisations about people. Anyway, Brite, what a coincidence that soon after you came here, 86..., an American IP deleted everything related to the message of the game, in other words what you've been complaining about, so that makes who a hypocrite? I'm telling you 86...etc, look at the version history of the game, look at the version history of the talk page, do you really think I would not stand up to your recent imPOVment after eleven months of work on it? I've even planned to rework it in a few months so that it has a chance to become a featured article. Before you think you could just terrorise it and me, you'd best have an exit strategy because when I chose to keep up work on the article months ago, I knew I'd have to keep up for years to keep what was achieved, and next year I'll have a lot more time to spend on any case due to my community service, that is, if you can stay the course until then.NightBeAsT 16:30, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nightbeast

I'm having a good bit of difficulty trying to edit the "America's Army" article, which is wordy, ungrammatical, and riddled with POV. Every time I try to make an edit the user Nightbeast re-posts the entire original article!

I have the impression this is because he feels he "owns" the article, which he hopes to use for some future publication. This doesn't seem to me to be appropriate to the goals of Wikipedia. I have tried contacting this individual but without success. This seems to me to be an attempt to prevent the on-line community from participating in what I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be all about!

If possible it would be nice if an unbiased third party could compare my version to Nightbeast's. I would appreciate a reply to this posting. A 199.21.28.14 20:10, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually it only becomes wordy and partisan when an anon who has no idea about the article or its discussion and deletes everything connected to the message of the game. I don't "own" the article, I protect its progressive status from persons like you, who think wikipedia is about giving his own opinion about the game and then comes the next and another and so on. Where would the article end up? As a comment? I've investigated and will investigate a lot of work into the article and if you think the article needs to be changed in any way, let's discuss it BEFORE changing the article. I don't ignore discussions. The article is good, you know that. If you want to question whether the message or it being propaganda should be mentioned, you'd better read the talk page rather than going on a deleting spree. And no, I will not give it up and have it become just another poorly written gamer article, that would be a little late and stupid after so a year of work, you'd do the same.NightBeAsT 18:00, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I was hoping to hear from a neutral third party, but whatever. I am going to avoid responding to Nightbeast's inaccurate and insulting remarks and content myself by alluding to the article's many falsehoods and inaccuracies.

I’m not going to do any more work on the article; the updates I have done were simply revisions of my previous revisions. However the DISPUTED banner should be added to the article as it stands now. This is the last thing I’m going to say on this topic:

I’m pleased to see that professor Galloway’s theory is now correctly identified as “social realism”. However Gallagher’s ideas, however interesting, are only his own POV!

Stating that HONOR is “an indicator of the time a player has played the game rather than the skills they have” is false, and claiming that “players with a high ‘HONOR’ level are sometimes insulted as addicts” is at best gossipmongering.

These assertions belong in the Controversy section if they belong anywhere in the article – but the Controversy section is longer than most entire Encyclopedia articles! Those huge paragraphs of quotations are not necessary and create an impression of bias. Statements like “it contains partisan bias” and “A Navy-produced booklet found by the investigative journalist Gary Webb explained this shift” are pure POV. Links to the full-text articles in the lengthy list of links is more than sufficient.

Nightbeast's English is better than my German. Unfortunately that’s not saying much! Statements like “America's Army is a figurative and written type of message presentation intended to globally give an approving impression of the present U.S. Army” is both wordy, biased, and ungrammatical. “America's Army is criticized as promoting the contemporary U.S. Army” would be correct. There’s a lot of that stuff in there.

The article as it stands now is peddling a highly critical POV. This isn’t inappropriate for a personal essay, but it IS inappropriate for an encyclopedia article! Please (re)read Wikipedia’s NPOV statement! It should be obvious even to Nightbeast that his article as it stands simply convinces unbiased readers of his prejudices.

Ironically I discovered “America’s Army” through the Calgary Herald article, which I read while up there for the Stampede. Undoubtedly this article is useful, and the controversy is an important part of the charm of “America’s Army”. However this controversy needs to be related in a non-controversial way! 199.21.28.14 18:03, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] possible Self-promotion abuse

in the list of academic articles until Sept 29 2005, only the authors of articles from the University of Utrecht (Netherlands) were named, with the exception of one link. All other references were cited without naming the author - this is rather unusual from an academic point of view.I have now included the names (and reordered the so most substantive articles are first.

[edit] Mobygames links

This is addressed to RememberMe who added the following comment to his 14:31, 18 October 2005 edit: no need to link entries of an opinion database, already enough research papers; generalizing undocumented information

Would you be so kind as to explain what you mean by opinion database and research papers?... MobyGames is a video games database. It contains information about released games. The only opinions I can think of are the reviews but those are not the main purpose of the database. Would you also be kind enough to explain why you don't want the Mobygames links added to the article?--analoguedragon 16:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't mind reviews together with useful professional information, but the validation of information obviously is lacking. Or would you deem it right the game is a fighting game? The site cares much more about advertisement, or maybe it's just a bad example for an entry. Nevertheless, it does not offer much (if at all) additional information than already provided with this wikipedia article. Release date(s), technical requirements and the cover - all are present in wikipedia and not in this kind of baby talk. Another thing I disagree is the way of treating the new version ("Special Forces") as a completly new game (which is said to "include" "AAO: Operations"). The "Army Game Project" has still realeased exactly one game, no matter if a patch is a new version, the other ones have become obsolete and are not playable. You cannot complete training in versions of "America's Army: Operations" anymore or play online. All in all, it does not contain new information but misleads with wrong ones. I haven't read the reviews but I don't expect they'd change anything. With research papers I refer to the linked articles like those comprehensive analyses by university graduates. We've just spent more time writing this than the player who's written the great, maybe a bit fanatic, description. RememberMe

OK. Objections noted. I agree with some of your concerns and it may be indeed true that this is not the best example for an entry. Since the links are not essential, I will leave them out of the article.--analoguedragon 19:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:External_links specifically

Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article, then the link would remain as a reference.

Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as textbooks or reviews.

My rationale is credits and release info

As always your opinions/comments are welcome. --Flipkin 16:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Any comments? --Flipkin 01:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if you want to know the release dates, the article has them. If you're looking for another page with them, the official homepage has them. If you want to read the credits, they're included in the game and it's manual. If you don't have the manual, it can be downloaded on the official homepage. That's also where you can get biographies of the representatives. The credits eternalized in your client's webpage are outdated. And while we're at it, could you please explain what's the big deal for you adding the links to that page? --RememberMe 12:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes the release date is listed for America's Army, but, as of yet, wikipedia is the only place I found in my research that lists that date as July 4th, 2002. I believe this is incorrect. There are at least 2 sources that list the release date as Aug 28th 2002: GameFaqs, GameRankings.com. Rise of a Soldier, which is lumped into this page, was also not released on July 4th: MobyGames. To the best of my knowledge, none of the versions were released on July 4th. Additionally, the only other source collaborating anything like a July 4th release, that I have found, was the article "America's Army: Behind the Scenes" under the Official Views and Publications of the Developers section. This too is inaccurate. The author of that article is annonymous. Although it seems to be an honest statement, there is no way to verify it was written by anyone on the development team. It may be worthy of a link, but certainly not under the guise of "Official View" or anything of the sort from the developers or otherwise. If we are to assume there is some level of credibility in the anonymously authored article, and July 4th was in fact the deadline for completion. It's highly unlikely that any organization would request a project like this to be completed ON the day it was due for release - which supports my claim that the July 4th release date is inaccurate. Citizenchan 19:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I believe that July 4th, 2002 is the date which is easiest to find. Maybe you haven't included http://www.americasarmy.com/intel/makingof_timeline.php in your research or you should search for U.S. independence day. If you have some time, you might also want to compare the dates with http://www.simhq.com/_land/land_028a.html. --RememberMe 13:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

As simple as checking the "official" website, instead of aimless googling. Thanks. Citizenchan 07:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] As for today it is neutral enough

As for October 20 2005 the article is neutral and not propagandistic (IMHO) why disagree? As about realism I say that if in shooter you do not respawn it is realistic enough for video game.

[edit] Larger context of the recruiting process

None of these remarks should be construed to represent the views of the US Army. I am merely an enlisted man, and not part of retention or recruiting. I don't work on the game and only saw it played briefly, but I think I can help the neutral POV by suggesting how AA fits into the larger process of recruiting. I'd like some comments on this before I try to boil it down to one or two sentences to add to the article.

Taken by itself, AA presents a tiny sliver of military service and life. But if we're to judge it as a recruting tool, we have to consider how it works along with the rest of the recruiting process.

Say you're a potential recruit and you download this game. First you might be attracted to the game aspect. After you play it for a while, however, you probably get an idea of Army values like honor and teamwork and how they are integral to conducting missions. My central claim is that "an idea" is all a potential recruit is supposed to get out of this game.

Once you pick up the phone and call a recruiter, you're speaking with someone who is in the service and has been in your shoes. If you like what you hear, you do your tests and pick your job and, typically, go into the Delayed Enlistment Program to chew it over for a few months. During that period, a potential recruit is going to talk to family and friends as they would for any life-altering decision.

Then it's back for more physicals, tests, &c, and you're shipped off to up to 16 weeks of Initial Entry Training where your Drill Sergeants are actively *trying* to get you to quit. It's not uncommon, in combat MOSs, for 40% of recruits to wash out. During that time you're exposed to NCOs with many years of experience in the army as well as your fellow recruits and the worst nonsense the Army can dish out.

To put things in perspective, AA let's you "die," during DEP your family and friends can remind you that in war people die, and when I went through IET the DS made one guy dig a grave and write a letter to a fictitious mother when he had a misfire with a blank round. The Army really does do everything humanly possible to make potential soldiers understand the realities of war before they're actually there. It's misleading to talk about AA's portrayal of war without putting it in that perspective.

A side note: the article mentions operant conditioning, which seems odd on the face of it since *any* kind of goals or penalties could be considered operant conditioning, and it's rather hard to have a game without them. I'm guessing that remark came from the fear that recruits are brainwashed; if so it's by the DoA which is an agency that's even less subtle than the guys who do those anti-drug ads. In my experience and discussion with others, the biggest thing that affects you psychologically and intellectually when you come in as a recruit is good old culture shock. It really feels like you're moving, by yourself, to a completely foreign country not to mention the fact that you're doing things you've never done in your life. Since the remark on operant conditioning is, in context of a game, a tautology, I'd ask that it be removed since it advances an ugly stereotype that hundreds of thousands of service members are brainwashed. --gman

I agree with your idea of considering the game in the context of the recruiting process. AA may really present a bit of military service and life, yet not enough to paint a complete picture - just enough to present weapons and ideology. It's not like players get an idea of army values. AA might teach teamwork, but that's not what the game is outstanding in. Concerning "honor", it really is true there's an incredible tendency among fans to use this term, however this is not because they have any clue what it means but because the game named an important number "honor", which brings us to the point of "operant conditioning". You accused this expression to be misleading as it tries to allude brainwashing. Well, I did not intend to point out a sneaky psychologic way of manipulation but a very common system that awards players for playing "right" or punishes them for not doing so. It's a development of gaming culture which spread with role playing games around fifteen years ago. Avatars slay monsters and get "experience points". Having enough, they "level up" - they might become stronger or have any other advantage. Altough it's pretty incredible for people who never experienced that, that system makes highly addictive. Players would spend hours, days, maybe even years just to get a lot of them. You see players that click like maniacs in Diablo or all those rpgs by Square/Enix or freak out when their progress is erased. The effects on players are unbelieveable, the traditional way of hunting high-scores became unnecessary. Lately, this development was highly increased with the introduction of online role-playing games (also known as MMORPGs, mass multiplayer online role playing games). Players are online with their avatars/account among others and still slay similar enemies. These games are the ones that make most addictive. Avatars become valuable, even in terms of money. If you don't believe me, try World of Warcraft. Accounts are sold on ebay for hundreds of dollars, they contain thousands hours of playing "work". Playing got a meaning, it's not pointless anymore. No need for fun to keep players. To get back to the topic, AA accounts are among those which are sold, too, and "honor" is what usually is named "level" in role-playing games - just another term. Of course, this system enforces rules, values and ideology, this doesn't have to be brainwashing. If there's a better term than operant conditioning for that, please replace it. RememberMe

[edit] History

The history section originally had this paragraph:

On November 6, 2003, version 2.0 of America's Army was published, with the full title of America's Army: Special Forces. The developers gave no reasons why the game foregrounded the U.S. Special forces in this and the following versions. A Navy-produced booklet found by the investigative journalist Gary Webb explained this shift. It stated that "the Department of Defense want[ed] to double the number of Special Forces soldiers, so essential [had they proven] in Afghanistan and northern Iraq; consequently, orders [had] trickled down the chain of command and found application in the release of [this version of America's Army]." [3]

I've changed it to correct the reference to what Webb called a 'navy-produced booklet,' which was slightly vague. It was a booklet of essays produced by the MOVES Institute for a videogame show in San Francisco, and is available online. 141.155.136.90 08:15, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Don't ask, don't tell

Since the game is supposed to paint a picture of what life is like in the US army, is don't ask, don't tell enforced? For example, if you say you're gay, is yor account cancelled? 203.118.184.121 15:56, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

No, accounts are never cancelled. Accounts can be banned but not deleted to keep up the account number which usually gives others the impression that there are 6 million players. However, banning usually is connected to using cheats or killing to many friends. If players don't like what you're saying, they can kick you by voting against you. Admins can ban you for no reason as well as enforcing other things. The reasons for being booted vary depending on the point of view of the fellow players. Surely, you can use swearwords, but don't expect a high level of tolerance. Chats in the game are like in other multiplayer online shooters. --RememberMe 18:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Surely accounts should be perma-banned from all official servers if a user openly admits they're gay though right? 203.118.184.121 19:44, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

No, know stop trolling. --68.54.161.91 01:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trolling. It's a genuiene question. Since this game is supposed to paint an accurate picture of what life is like in the US army, it's important for us to consider how accurate that picture is. Clearly, failing to punish people for admitting they're gay highlights a major shortcoming in the game. For example, gay people might assume it's okay to openly admit your gay in the US army. 203.109.205.135 14:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

If you have nothing positive to say, you should post anything on here... There a good reasons behind everything they do. Gay men taking shower with other men would be like men and women taking a shower together. You need to look at the whole picture, and take everyone effected into account. It could and would most likely end up putting alot of staight men into unconfertible positions, and have more people leave the army then how many gays would join the army and still keep everything cool... Also the game doesn't need every little detail. --69.24.189.254 22:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

After that pointless response, I'm curious about it too! -- Crnk Mnky 00:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Concerning changes by User:Ablenet and User:RememberMe

First of all, America's Army and America's Army: Rise of a Soldier are NO different games. The title "America's Army" stands for a project describing all games and updates etc. including PC and console games. Even if America's Army was only referring to the PC game, it wouldn't make much sense to create an article for the console games as they have the same history, maps etc. except for some changes in gameplay. Therefore, there should probably be a small section describing the differences but not more.

Concerning your other changes:

• Changes in the info box: How do you want to know who the designer is? Is it the NPS? Probably another company.. Who knows? Updating the version is fine, but not really necessary because it's concealed anyway.

The requirements should be updated to the current version if any changes occured. Do not speculate.

• Changes in the defining section: Computer games usually have patches and they usually change something.

Again your speculation and JUDGEMENT ("high") about requirements does not fit in there.

• Changes in overview: Don't just copy some alleged statistics. Yet I'm willing to accept your Top10 ranking if you have

proves. Mentioning games like Everquest is not necessary.

• Creating your Trivia section is your POV. It could as well be named "Intersting" which is POV as well.
• Moving the 'external links' section does not make sense to me.

However I think your separation of the articles by criteria is a good idea and I will have a closer look at it soon, yet the separation by years is completely superflouus. For these reasons, I think your last changes, except for the external links are inappropriate and I will undo them to id=29526334 while doing some modification considering your changes. To prevent some conflicts: Please note that a "PC" is a term not considering the OS so don't replace "Windows" with it. Also a Notebook using Solaris is in this category. I will do my best to merge the other versions into the article. --RememberMe 15:53, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Wow ok i made new changes before you made your talk. You are making some good points here and I think we are pretty much in agreement on the page. For example, the PC thing being for windows and mac and linux- ok yea that needs to be changed back, and you or I can do that. I think there is some differences but we can figure that out later. For now I will just point out that ROS is a different if related game- it has different publisher, developer, release date, and gameplay. A good analogy would be Return to Castle Wolfenstein and Wolfenstein: ET. Ablenet 16:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

No, RoS has just an additional developer (Ubisoft and probably others) to transform the game to the consoles. Certainly, the gameplay may differ a bit, concerning that it's not a complete online game like the pc version. However, you will see that the game doesn't even has other maps. If you compare the Medal of Honor transformations to consoles, you'll see that the maps are not the same. But this time, the maps are just a duplication. I'd strongly advice that these versions get a paragraph in the gameplay section to contrast the main changes. Surely, there are other release times, you could as well create an article for every PC version naming arguments like other names and release dates. But then you might also have the point that there might be an additional map. --RememberMe

Well you have a real point with the maps, though they are not identical (some were redone). The problem is that there is a lot of other changes that are not in the PC version, and it is a waste of space to go over them here. Unlike the other release dates which are just patches this is a actual retail game. I mean one is free the other costs 50 dollars, one large single player aspect with a career mode, the other is pretty much a free counterstrike for online. The page is well done, but its similar too Splinter Cell page- it can cover the history of franchise not get cluttered up. Ablenet 17:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

If you had looked on my changes before ignoring and reverting them, you'd probably have seen that the release dates fit perfectly into the box (which has release dates(s) anyway) and the price is not going to be a problem either. Mentioning that the pc version is for free suffices and prices like 50$ are not part of game articles anyway. These changes like carrer mode belong to the gameplay which I think should just include a paragraph for the major changes. Yet do not forget that the name of the article is just a general name for the entire project comprising all the three versions. While talking about why a complete article for the other versions is unnecessary, I still do not agree with your changes on the main article. I have not done any changes you disagree with, have I? If not, why are you reverting it before even looking at them? --RememberMe

Ok there is not really three versions. I suppose you are suggesting Special forces is really its own game? Well some people think that, I guess it did have new features and game engine, but some of the larger patches also have that. I guess eventually if you wanted to have SF be its own article I would not stop you. I think for this article I am reading your changes and updating the version.

If you really want to include the song made about the game in overview, again, I would compromise on that for something else. Really that is not part of the game IMO. As for other stuff you say it presents a "positive" image. Well that is big debate if it is positve or not, and I think people can decide for themselves. Ablenet 17:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, don't try to distract. I made a lot of changes and you just ignored them. I want to know why. And just for the record, I don't think I said something about "positive image", but let's discuss this after you have told me what you disagree with. --RememberMe 17:43,

Distract? You said too look at changes you made, and that is what we are talking about. For example, you said the section that talks about 'top ten' was ok with you if sourced, which it is (from that link), but you changed it back anyway. Im not sure what to say we disagree on as Im not sure what it is exactly you want for the page. I doubt it is everything you are actually changing (such as things you have said in your talk). Lets just take one issue at a time here, such as the matter of how the bottom links are organized. Ablenet 17:56, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, ok. Concerning the bottom links, I think the arragement (first journalistic and then academic) was better before, because press usually reflects the people's opinion or is at least written for outstanders. As for the year numbers, I have said I find them superflouus. The exact dates are standing right beside them and that's all that matters. Using these extra year-headlines the article requires more vertical space and hence it's exactly what you named "waste of space". Concerning the separation of academic articles, I think separating in teachers-students is a better choice than this half-definition. Just have a look at what I have changed down there and then tell me what you don't like. --RememberMe 18:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok then journalistic can be moved above academic, and I guess the years seperation can be taken out. I will make a modified bottom version (rather than going through each detail) and let me know what you think. I am done for today though so my response will be tommorow. If it is ok, then the next issue can be the matter of the 'culture impact' section (for tommorow though). Ablenet 18:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I have done some changes in the "External Links" section, which I see no reason to disagree with. If so, we can talk about it. But I'm not going to continue to analyse your version from the bottom to the top. The defining section and the overview are the most relevant pieces and thus should be discussed first. You have committed major changes to them which I mostly disapprove. First of all, please have a look at how I have imagined a good header (first paragraph) in other version and then tell me why you have reverted it. If your critique of "positive image" is all that made you revert it, we can leave it out or discuss it later. --RememberMe 10:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I looked over the changes to the links section and made some more small changes. It is important to say prof, rather that university teacher because university teacher can include non-profs. Also, graduate students are still students, so saying students and graduates. Also, not everybody knows what pdf is, so I it back for just some (left it for others) since its not really needed for everyone.

As for what changes I wanted over your old version- well the changes I made are the ones I thought were needed. Im open to improvement, but the old intro has issues. For example, 'operations' was not the very first name, ROS is not in 'development' etc.. Im open to improvements, but just reverting to your old version is a step backward because its not accurate (not that it wasn't well written). Anyway one smaller issue we can take of is the matter of 'culture impact' section- is this name ok rather than trivia? Ablenet 15:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Speak to the question: Why have you reverted the changes in the opening paragraph of other version? --RememberMe 16:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I did answer, just above. Also, why have you reverted? Well probably for similar reasons. That is what we are working through now. For example, is 'culture impact' ok rather than 'trivia'. Ablenet 16:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not going to fall for your means of distraction. The section 'trivia'/'culture impact' is not under discussion so name it however you want, I don't care. What matters are your major changes in the opening paragraph and I will not accept them without justification. Take some time and get arguments why you didn't accept my [[changes]. I have marked the article until you have proved all your new statements because I think most are wrong. --RememberMe 16:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Im not "distracting" I spent several sentences talking about the introduction, and you had mentioned the 'trivia' section earlier as well. If the intro is very important then, we can focus on that. I already listed some of my arguments above- the bigger question for me is what things do you take issue with in the updated version? Also, is the section about 'top ten' ok or is that also still a problem. Ablenet 16:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I made some small corrections to the intro- mabybe this helps, maybe not? I am done for today but I will check back again friday. I think we are making progress here, so that is good. Ablenet 17:32, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Now would you please stop talking about the version you enforced by reverts "updated" and the one I tried (but got reverted every time without the least tolerance) "outdated" or "old". Don't worry, I'm going to keep your changes at the bottom of the article at least temporarily. --RememberMe 21:34, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Changes in header

As you can see, I have changed the opening paragraph of the article.

1. Added Army Game Project as other title. If you don't believe me that this is the real official name, read the EULA you have digitally signed by installing America's Army: Special Forces, the meta keywords on the homepage and various other sources (Google counts more than 500).
2. The "distributed for free" must refer to the PC version, as you have also complained that the console version costs ~50$. The information about the tax dollars needs to be mentioned because of all the critique targetting at this and as a fact whose removal would be a lie. I agree with User:Jayson Virissimo that it did not fit into the other sentence.
3. I kept your "image" without "positive", however I think it's most obvious...
4. I deprived the info about the location of the Naval Postgraduate School, it's really unnecessary concerning the game.
5. Your information about patches and that they "transform" "many aspects", which actually happens to most online games, does not belong into the opening paragraph and is mentioned in the Overview anyway.
6. I made clear that Operations, Rise of a Soldier are just subtitles and not full names.
7. I have removed your statement about increasing system requirements because that is unnecessary to mention in the opening paragraph
8. I have removed your statement "AA also spawned America's Army: Rise of a Soldier" because AA is no fish spawning some versions of itself... In my changes, I hope I have made clear that Rise of a Soldier is the subtitle for the Console version of America's Army.

If you disagree with some of the points, feel free to discuss them - I'm willing to stand up for all of them.
--RememberMe 21:34, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] About the extraction of the console version (see America's Army: Rise of a Soldier)

As I think you seem to use Counter-Strike maps as an argument to justify America's Army maps, I think it also makes sense to consider Counter-Strike as a similar game especially concerning the console version of it.

1. Counter-Strike's console version also has not been put into a separate article because of all the similarties, connections and contexts with the PC version.
2. Counter-Strike's console version also has a different publisher, engine and release dates
3. Counter-Strike's console version also features singleplayer whereas the PC version does not
4. Counter-Strike's console version also uses the same maps of the PC version (except for some changes)
5. The article about Counter-Strike has been split into (at least) seven articles and nevertheless the console version is still included in the main one.

I hope that this suffices to convince you of the redundancy and irrelevance of attempting such an article.
--RememberMe 21:34, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I've redirected this stub article to America's Army again because I think it's confusing to scatter the article into such fragments. I think this article stub really does not contain any valueable information which can be merged into America's Army. --RememberMe 17:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Counter-Strike is not a good analogy. The PC and console versions are very similar. America's Army: Rise of a soldier is a different game, not simply a different version. Until "Rise of a Soldier" there was no single-player campaign, nor the ability to "develop" a single character. An entirely seperate page may not be necessary, but I think it needs to be stated that these games are not simply versions of one another but sequels. : Citizenchan 18:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I cannot really help you with it, because I simply don't have that game. I believe that there should be a few lines in the gameplay section pointing out the main differences and summarizing it as short as possible. A screenshot wouldn't hurt either... --RememberMe 13:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OPFOR vs. Enemy

I modified the article to use the correct terminology of enemy as opposed to OPFOR. I left one instance, noting that OPFOR was used to designated the opposing team in training maps; the M.I.L.E.S. maps.

[edit] Grammar

Is this correct?

It should be "America's Army has been developed since 2000 and still changes through add-ons and patches" since development is ongoing. I would prefer something like "Development began in 2000 and continues through the release of numerous/regular add-ons and patches". But that's just me. Slinky Puppet 13:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Questions

"shortly after computer-based wargames were permitted on government computers for U.S. Marines" 

Does this mean some computers were set aside for marine training or that marines could install games on their computers?

"The Department of Defense raised its spending for recruitment to more than US$2.2Bn" 

Compared to what? Is that a 10% increase or 0.001%?

"After the game proved successful, the project was withdrawn from the Naval Postgraduate School due to allegations of mismanagement[4] in March 2004" 

Is it relevant that the game had proven successfull at the time the project was withdrawn? Was the project withdrawn in March 1994 or was that when the allegations were made (not always the same)? Slinky Puppet 14:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Serious Bias

The links to other games at the bottom frames AA in a very negative light, by placing it alongside white supremacist games. It then shows 'peacemaker' games, with the implication that they are better? What do these games have to do with AA at all? This needs to be changed. 172.188.138.112 14:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• In fact, pretty much the entire article is written from an overall negative standpoint. This is a ridiculously horrible attempt at an informative, unbiased article. 68.79.203.1 18:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I dnt think this article meets NPOV standards and should be marked as such. 172.216.7.123 12:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I've gone through and remove a link to an article that had false information about the game system requirements, the language filter and other blatently wrong content. I've also gone through and added a few citations and changed the caption on one of the pictures. While I agree that it is a bit of a strech to toss AAO in with white supremacist games, both are intended for recruitment. It may be distasteful to leave the other references in there, but perhaps not completely unfounded. If there is anything else that needs work just let me know and I'll try and correct the errors.--Saintlink 08:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Linux and Mac discontinued

The mac and linux version have been discontinued, article modified to show that.

[edit] I for I research

A poll by I for I Research said that 30 percent of young people who had a positive view of the military said that they had developed that view by playing the game.

A google search for "I for I research" finds this text repeated word for word on several websites, none of which cite a source (even SourceWatch). Does I for I Research actually exist?

An exact search on Google shows this article as one of about five sites mentioning it. It most obviously does not exist. Removing until someone can prove it does. 207.67.145.204 00:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

-It sounds like some vandal was trying to do a play on words: I for I = "an eye for an eye"

[edit] Abbreviations and whatnot

Hey I have an idea let's always use things like "U.S." (instead of, you know, United States) in the very beginning of an article...because we want to give the reader as little information as possible and abbreviations are the perfect way of accomplishing this. Love to all, Paul 04:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Right. It's not like the country this game was made for is an important detail. And using an abbreviation instead of a short name would REALLY cut down on useless info. 207.67.145.204 00:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to comment on the recent update made to this article. 2.7:Steamroller is a SITREP (situation report, i.e, a news update) posted on the America's Army website, talking about a new map named Steamroller. It is NOT the working title of 2.7. Version 2.7 is still titled SF Overmatch.Marine4Life51 00:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

-Yes, and people also think that there will be a 2.9, when the devs have stated that 2.8 will be the final 2.x version. This article has gone to hell. 207.195.254.206 02:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links

The external links section needs to be cleaned up. Wikipedia:External links states that an article should have a few links to an external source, not fifty. Any articles used for information should be cited, not added to EL. There are far too many articles linked here and the number needs to be cut down significantly. 207.67.145.194 22:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you guys mind not removing my WARSPAWN link? Theres a free download for AA there, free hosting for clans, and a free toplist. I would understand removing it if I were enforcing paid services, but its a completely optional thing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ragnarev (talk • contribs).

Wikipedia is about information, not services. Promoting your site is against Wikipedia guidelines, especially if it has nothing that anyone besides a few people will care about. Linked sites must be popular, notable, and useful. 207.67.146.222 23:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Main section of the game?

I have a problem with a part of the gameplay section:

The main section of the game is the multiplayer part, in which players fight either as the U.S. Army or, on "Special Forces" maps, as Indigenous forces against an opposing enemy team.

As america's army has no single player campaign mode, and its previously stated as being a multiplayer online game. Seems redundant. Also, how many quotations are used in the article? seems a bit overboard.