Talk:America's Army/Archive 4

Reasons for changes
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? 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. 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. Of course the US Army is the same as OPFOR. It's just depicted in another way. And the contrasts these two forces. This section doesn't explain the how the transformation works concerning the contribution of points. And that's what the sentences makes clear. 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. 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 noticed what grover said before, realized he's right and changed it. You could have realized that change. 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. 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 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. Sorry, I cannot prove what you said and there's absolutely no relevance. No proof and no relevance? Will be removed.
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * "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)
 * 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)
 * That's explained in the US Army/OPFOR transformation. You're just adding extraneous stuff here. Wareware 18:59, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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'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)
 * 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 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)
 * 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)
 * 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 propAganda is an opinion, not a fact. 64.8.81.232

Read the articles, this page, the meaning of the word, anything. I'm not going to start over once again. 100 kb is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much already. What do you want another 50kb?217.185.104.223 17:18, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, since not one registered user has commented, and I have a strong suspicion one person with a proxy is the only person opposing me, if by 9:30EST no one registered has objected, I'll be RVing to my prior edit of the article, mentioning both advertisment and propeganda. [anonymous]

I guess someone has to weigh in. I prefer the sentence:


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

--Peter O. (Talk) 02:34, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

The sentence "[...]however, many players of the game do not agree with this assessment." needs to be removed for several reasons:

1) The use of "however" is this context is ambigious: Does this apply that those have an effect on the aforementioned or is it a point of view which tries to dissociating from the prevous part in order to make it less significant? The following points indicate that what follows "however" is not only frail, but also thought up.

2) The quantity description "many" needs to be based on approved numbers in comparison to others before it can be used. However, there are no clear numbers for they cannot exist for technical reasons. How many is "many" in this relation? 2, 100, 10000? It's a pure assumption because it cannot be determined and thus shouldn't be mentioned. To make it a true statement without having numbers you have to say "there are players.." - it's less precise but that would be a true statement. Besides the term "many" is likely to be a form of a point of view and it does neither include nor exclude whether "many players of the game" actually DO agree in order to make those less significant.

3) What condition makes a person a "player of the game"? How long needs he play the game before the term applies? Are those who don't play the game anymore but had played it before excluded from this amount? Are those who only play it seldomly as well?

4) How can it be verified those "do not agree with this assessment"? Are there clear numbers or facts they do not? Did someone make spot checks with those or handled them a kind of questionary to figure out they do not agree?

5) "assessment" has an ambigious in this context and is likely to be a point of view in order to make the previous statement less significant.

my conclusion: This is a very vague statement and represents a one sided point of view. You made an objective sentence a subjective one and a lie that aims at misleading. Should an encyclopedia tolerate that?RememberMe

I do not think I need to mention it but behind these "various IPs" there are more than one user instead of a single one. It would be impossible for one to handle all your alleged crap. I don't think I need to mention it because it's totally irrelevant how many people oppose something. It does NOT count how many are on which side, it counts what is behind: arguments and truth. With your lies and will to mislead people by depicting the game as something it is not, you're runnining against a wall of truth and arguments and I'll make sure you won't tear that wall down, no matter if you're a biased AA players or a biased admin on the site. I'm right, and you know that very well. And even if you are in the majority, this rule remains true: "Something is still right, even if everyone thinks it's not. Something is wrong even if everyone thinks it's right." You don't EVEN think you're right, you just pretend! Knock off your pathetic pretence for I only accept the truth, and the truth only. I don't mind if your ludicrous opposition is kept up for years, it will end up without success and the feeling of having wasted your time with your hypocricy.

Saying the game is primarily propaganda, I'll have the truth backing me. Equating it with advertisement and even pretending as if "many players disagree(d) over which label fit(ted) better", you back it with lies. As if anyone in the game knew anything! Search the official forum for the word "propaganda", you'll find nothing. "Many"? What a liar you are. You represent not "many" players, you'll represent ONE. And you disagree just for the sake of disagreeing.

If you're actually interesting in finding the truth, you'd have read the articles with an open mind and agreed on that. Actually I don't need to do this because it's not the truth you're seeking, but I've found another university page and would like to post it. http://www.minitrue.nl/essays/nmnc-aa/justin.html You didn't manage to read the talk page, so I'll summarize the most importent statements concerning our which-fits-better-topic.

"In this contribution I will also distinguish the advergame from the propagame in order to give a further analysis of America's Army."

"The game America's Army, the propagame as I will call it, is unique in its being."

" From advergame to propagame "

"The message America's Army sends itself is propagandistic. It propagandises a certain kind of lifestyle message in which the army would like the participant to join and become. Propaganda itself has a history within religion. Religion also sends the same message, to let the participant (or the participant in becoming) join and become the religion (so sending the message of religion). So America's Army, with its governmental background, is instead of an advergame, better to be described as a propagame."

BETTER TO BE DESCRIBED AS A PROPAGAME. What did I say? PRIMARILY fits the definition of propaganda. =>Authority argument (university) underscores my version.

"When it comes to the propagame America's Army, the next quotation is striking: "The initial success of America's Army has exceeded the Army's expectations, and Colonel Wardynski and his design team are excited about the possibilities. "We're going to be pushing out new versions of the game as fast as we can build them," he says. "This same team will be building missions, weapons, and new features for years to come." The nation's youth can expect a lot more from their friendly army of one."( 'America's Army' Targets Youth by Jacob Hodes & Emma Ruby Sachs)"

" From the analysis of the advergame and the striking resemblance I have described with the propagame America's Army I will now turn my attention to the consequences for communication on Internet by such games."

" The exception is America's Army because it communicates itself as a company in which citizens can join. The aim is to let the gamers themselves join the company as an employee and be the producers within of the message the army sends. One of the aims of advergames is to construct a process of viral marketing, but this is done unlike the propagame. The advergame aims that consumers virally communicate about the game or the message it beholds for the purpose of spreading the word, but not to become one with the company itself. DaimlerChrysler for example wouldn't make a game in which one is being trained to become the director of a car factory (this would create competition). Not yet (emphasised), but maybe in the future it will when one seeks for employees."

"I thus called it a propagame: a game that propagandises a message to become the message. Within the game, gamers are disciplined and the power structures are like the common army power structure: top down hierarchical."

" My investigation led me to belief that advergames and the propagame America's Army aim not to exclude"

"Advergames are the commercial type, but America's Army shows what a propaganda type can do. Other governmental or institutional propagames can soon follow (the US navy is working on it's own version of America's Army)."

What do you think now? Let me guess: "I must defend my Army, even if I lie! Even if have to pretend to be stupid! Even if I'll infect others with my bias".

I'll draw a conclusion similar to my first comment on this discussion page:

FACE THE TRUTH! I won't waste anymore sentences on your weak dogmatism. I've explained it, I've listed a page full of arguments and I'm backed by definitions of the word "propaganda" from history books and dictionaries, by CNN, by serious newspapers, by universities, by the truth. You're backed by childish BIAS. Or do you just want to discuss for the sake of discussing? Suppose you'd best join a chat room then. Now excuse me, Sir, I've to improve the article and filter your crap and bias. But I'll make sure I won't filter your good points (in case you have some...). 217.185.104.181 12:05, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Done. If you think more should be included, discuss it. By "discuss" I mean debate, not chatter.217.185.104.181 12:50, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Fine, I was just trying to present both sides, it is ambiguous. I won't RV. There's a current edit that states the game is propeganda. I'm editing it to trim off the "many people", but the message will stay. I can see my perception is outnumbered. - GregNorc  ( talk ) 22:38, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)