Talk:America's Army/Archive 5

Recent edit by me
"While whether it has achieved it's aims has yet to be seen, America's Army is a propaganda and virtual recruiting tool."

I replaced a sentence stating (paraphrased) "This game is propeganda though some people don't know it is."

While it removes an unsubstantiated claim, it's still a little rough looking. Any suggestions on how to phrase it? - GregNorc  ( talk ) 22:42, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)


 * I changed it to "....America's Army is considered a form propaganda and a virtual recruiting tool.". The sentence above about -people not knowing it is- is rubbish. I don't think anyone really denies that the game is a "form of propaganda", the problem is the use of the word propaganda which in our present day has taken on a negative connotation. Perhaps instead of linking propaganda to the article on propaganda we link the words "form of propaganda" to the controversy section where it describes it more in detail. (and thus link to the propaganda article wherever in that section is next uses the word) K1Bond007 23:21, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

There's a HUGE difference between is and is considered. You imply it is not necessarily true but just say that one person (or more) regard it as propaganda. A woman is a human being. A woman is considerd a human being. If you say that you didn't think anyone denies it, why make these indirect suggestions?

"Whether it has achieved its aims has yet to be seen". How can you see it? After 1999 there were much changes that have an effect on recruitment numbers. There was 9/11, there was the Iraq war, there was a huge advertisemet campaign. "Army of one" slogan, etc. You'll never be able to say what effect America's Army had exactly. But AA was effective, otherwise they wouldn't have invented "Close Combat: First to Fight" and wouldn't still be spending millions on AA.217.185.104.236 11:38, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I made my edit clear stating that propaganda has a very negative connotation and therefore is NOT CONSIDERERED propaganda by numerous people. Thats why I worded it like that. I didn't go and plagarise an article like you and change a few words (after being found out). The sentence: "America's Army is primarily a playable and subliminal piece of video game propaganda" came from http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguide/features/story/0,,1242262,00.html -> was inserted here notice it in there word for word and somewhere along the line to changed to the trash we see today. Where's the evidence that the game is subliminal? K1Bond007 16:59, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

Lol that's great: every day there is another try to improve the picture about AA. The great thing about that is that you're mostly wrong and thus usually one cannot be unsuccessful argueing with you. Now, if people consider something as something it is not, only because the truth has negative connotations, these people are intentionally blind. It is less important what some blind people consider the game than what the game really IS. It IS propaganda. Some people consider the Earth a slice, but the Earth IS a globe and that's decisive. The Guardian article used DIFFERENT words. Who cares if the sentence has the same meaning? Not sublimal? Oh yes? How many people think "Propaganda, propaganda!" when they hear "Good morning, soldiers, and welcome to the blah blah blah" as if the film "Full metal jacket" hadn't realized how friendly the army is to the soldier? How many think it when instead of "Do you want to quit the game and would be sent to court if you were a soldier and did the same?" they see "Do you really want to quit America's Army"(or something like that)? I'm 100% sure you had not noticed before I've now told you. How many think when enemies are described as "terrorist forces" (neg.) instead of "freedom fighter"(pos.) or something neutral? How many think it when they notice there are no civilians around? If you say the game is an accurate summary of soldier experiences, it is a lie as if they had never heard of "collateral damage" or anything. It is subliminal because people in general do not realize it. Just join an AA server and ask them if the game is realistic and where there are differences between it and reality. It can ONLY be successful if it is subliminal, because if it was consciously perceived as propaganda, the forum would be full of the word "propaganda" and the game would never be perceived as realistic. You have the choice: either you mention it is subliminal or that most players do not know it is dishonest propaganda. That piece of information should not go unmentioned, or it cannot be understood why the game is considered a total success. Because of the number of players? No, even if billion players played the game regularly, it would be unsuccessful if players noticed the game's intention. They are happy because despite the extremely small number of players (counter-strike has had more than 200 000 play the game but I cannot find accurate and reliable sources for that) their propaganda is effective. It is effective because it is generally not considered to be propaganda.

Yeah, you're right about the truth of the university research paper: it might be wrong. Of course it is not, but too be totally accurate, I'll fix it.62.134.105.247 13:06, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Rememberme's rv
It's considered bad form to revert without at least adding an edit summary, Rememberme; a reasonable explination would be nice, as all I did was make the article more readable at points. No information was cut, no information added. humblefool 02:46, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You added and deleted information.217.185.104.236

AA saves a life
I just got this info but am very reluctant to add it to the article, due to the intense bias and flaming that seems to occur with every edit (e.g. trying to mention that America's Army is a serious game). But I'll post it here on the talk page. If anyone else cares to add it to the article, they may. It comes from Jerry Heneghan, Executive Producer-Government Applications, America's Army Game Project. He, in turn, got it from a Colonel Casey Wardynski, who got it from Marie J. Fordney (it was a forwarded email, hence all the hands it passed through). The contents of Fordney's email appears below:


 * ''I would like you to know that my 16 year-old son, Marlon, plays The Official USA Army Game - America's Army. Because of the "medical training" portion in the game, his 18-year old brother, Dadrien, is alive this morning.


 * ''My older son Dadrien was cleaning out the garage. He went to break a gold [sic] club in half over his knee to put in the garbage. The metal part of the club flew up and sliced the arterial vein in his arm.  Marlon, from playing the game knew what to do.  He was able to apply pressure and calmly follow additional instructins over the phone from the police.  Marlon managed to keep the "blood flow" in tact until the first aid squad arrived.  If it wasn't for this game, his brother would have bleed to death.


 * ''I was a supporter of the Army and the game before, but more so now.


 * Thank you so much.

I now expect unrealistically harse and biased comments based on the contents of the letter, all of which I will try to ignore. There it is, do with it what you please. I'll answer any reasonable questions, but will try to ignore insults and references to how this is another element of some sinister plot. &mdash; Frecklefoot | Talk 19:46, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Now, that does it, man! First Bond and you have used personal insults and being biased as hell, then you wrongfully accuse everyone else of insulting and being biased. Look! Cut it out! Kill your double standards, kill your lies, kill your dogmatism, kill your ignorance. Are you making fun of me? Are you trying to confuse? Are you naive? Ignorant? I just can't work you out.

Seriously. You cannot even READ, all you can do is write. Or can you read but not think? Or can you think but not understand? Or can you think but don't want to understand? Or can you even understand but only pretend to be stupid? Do you have Alzheimer and thus cannot remember what was written? Whatever it is, speak WITH AN OPEN MIND or don't speak at all. No one is going to explain it a thousand of times to you.

Let me ask you just one, ONE question about the e-mail: Do you always fall for what the army says? What's your answer? Crying? Accusing of bias and wrong language? Posting a google link to '  "e-mail" "America's Army"   '? Posting some websites of certain game developers that want to be serious? Frecklefoot, you still haven't changed your "serious game" page. This page, now more than ever, does not seem to me to belong to an encyclopedia ... someone might want it DELETED and provide a lot of proof and reasons. This being said, I'll enjoy the following days of carnival and hope - in your interest - that you'll change something fundamentally at you. I don't know about you, but I think I've been too complaisant. Disappoint me and I'll prove that this can be a doubl-edged sword.217.185.104.152 22:52, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Nice job proving him correct. If you're going to reply, at least have a serious discussion, otherwise don't reply at all. There was no need to be this rude. K1Bond007 06:20, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Lol, well, if you think so... Anyway, this matter is even clearer than the ones before and if you want to discuss it, I'll soon take my time for that too. If you think I was "rude", think about why I was like that and hopefully conclude that some people don't like to explain that the "honesty" of those developers does not exist. What did I tell you about those MILLIIONS of users and about the discouragement of violence in the game? You can read about that in "serious game" somewhere in this discussion book. It is annoying when you take your time explaining someone something and all what happens is that he doesn't get it because he overlooked/forgot/ignored what was written. In my opinion I've been too accommodating with regard to your unjustified opposition. Just try to make me angry, and I'll show you that I'm capable of changing. If you think that attack is the best defence, I'll beat you with your own tactic. LOL. Sounds humorous, huh? But just because it sounds funny, doesn't mean I was kidding if you know what I mean.62.52.37.130 14:46, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * "It is annoying when you take your time explaining someone something and all what happens is that he doesn't get it because he overlooked/forgot/ignored what was written." Don't forget to mention biased. I understand this statement so, so, well. Regardless, what you wrote was not necessary. As previously stated if you can't object without listing reasons don't participate in the discussion at all. -- As for myself, I object to inserting it because theres no credible source for this news. If it's in the news then show an article and then I may agree, but I can't possibly agree to adding an email - whether it is true or not. K1Bond007 19:11, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * Sure. The only source I have is her phone number and address, which I'm not going to post for obvious reasons.  I just thought it was interesting news to pass on to those who are interested in this article. :-)   &mdash; Frecklefoot | Talk 01:40, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

"Don't forget to mention biased. I understand this statement so, so, well."

Bias, huh? Is it me or you with the double standards? A double standard is a perfect example for BIAS. You can accuse of bias all the time but you cannot do with reasons.

"Regardless, what you wrote was not necessary." And the "AA saves life" section is necessary at all ?? Be self-critical first.

"As previously stated if you can't object without listing reasons don't participate in the discussion at all.

Uhh..Another double standard. You accuse of bias, don't list any reason, participate in the discussion, then critisise for participating in the discussion without reasons. Fine. Actually it's laughable to provide you with more reasons because you could know the reasons yourself: No relevance, no proof, no reliable source, no reasons for including it.

After the fierce but objective dispute using facts VS facts without ever getting personal or neglecting the other point of view, I think we have all come to the undeniable conclusion that we HAVE to include the irrefutable "news": ''Someone using the pseudonyme "Frecklefood" claims that a person called "Jerry Heneghan" claimed that he was forwarded an email from Colonel Casey Wardynski which was claimed to be forwarded from Marie J. Fordney in which a person claimed that his son claimed to have saved his brother by using the professional medic treatments the game explains in order to let a player know how to press the Use-button when a player is injured. However, there is no proof at all for this story and the incontrovertibly google-proof returns zero results when small fragments of the alleged "email" are used as search queries.''


 * Reread my comments then stick your foot in your mouth. Your're wrong. I added my thoughts to the discussion which DID NOT support the inclusion of this. Clearly all you can do is flame. This is twice. K1Bond007 17:27, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * To quote from above:
 * Someone using the pseudonyme "Frecklefood"
 * Actually, it's Frecklefoot. ;-)
 * You know, you're so fond of posting here, it escapes me why you don't just go ahead and create an account. Logging in provides more privacy, not less, if that's your concern.   &mdash; Frecklefoot | Talk 20:07, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * He's this guy User:RememberMe and this guy User:Nightbeast. K1Bond007 20:27, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute
Okay, whether you think that AA is 'the best game' or 'pure propaganda', simply reverting each other's changes will not help and may result in breaking the 3RR rule. Neither it will help for the article to be NPOV. If you feel why the other side's edits are too extreme that you have to revert, please do explain here. - Mailer Diablo 18:23, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well then, let's discuss it
- 1.  - in what way is it NPOV? In NO way. Why that sign?!149.225.40.78 20:27, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) - 2.intention of the game was removed despite high relevance->vandalization149.225.40.78 20:27, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) - 3."The game, while well recieved by gaming community, has suffered some criticism's on its implications." made up. Source? The game is generally disliked by famous clans, even. - 4."and one of the bese simulators availbe to date for close infantry combat." highly pov. Source? Made up. - 5."Over 4.5 million have registered, a fraction of them have in turn completed basic training. Roughly a couple million down to just hundreds of thousands complete the various training mission." no more than a LIE - 6."Succesive improvements to the game have staved of the player base declining to much." I don't think so. Proof? actually the game got worse and worse in my opinion and only the advertisement for the game prevented the number from declining. - 7.total vandalism of "controversy" section. - 8."Though many innovations were done to increase this realism, such as being put in jail for violating rules, training sessions before doing missions, and being dead until the end of a round when killed." correct in small issues to deceive in big ones, I'd say. don't mislead! - 9."one of the primary goals is not to advertise but to allow people who won't or can't join the army, a chance to have see some aspects of the army experience such as training and infantry combat." LoL Yeah sure! - 10."though its generally considered to be a continuation of advertising the armed forces have always done, such as with posters. Other organizations have released free video game to promote there cause, notabley some movire releases. Also, being a psudo-simiulation the game allows peopel who cannot join the military a chance to see some of what goes on. " don't get it right - just get it written, huh? - 11."They mainly affect the player by restricting access to some servers. If his points are to high or to low some servers do not allow them, though some servers have no restriction. In the game, players with higher 'honor' have better chance of getting there preffered weapon, such as grende launcher. Mainly it servers to prevent player killing, as killing a fellow team memeber results in a big loss of honor, which if done enough mean that the person will not be able to play on most servers. They will have to play on a special training server until they get there honor up about 10 points or so." lack of relevance and even wrong place - You know, you should be justifying your "edit". That was just vandalization. Much has already been discussed on the talk page several times so it was clearly vandalization. 3-r rule doesn't apply on vandalization.149.225.96.38 18:38, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * 2.intention of the game was removed despite high relevance->vandalization most game articles do not list there intention in the first section

Well they should though. Anyway, AA is NOT a normal game. Intention is the main core of the game. It's not some Tetris but a recruiting experiment, so its intention, result, its success should be stated primarly. The rest of the article is almost irrelevant by comparison.149.225.96.38 19:36, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 3."The game, while well recieved by gaming community, has suffered some criticism's on its implications." made up. Source? The game is generally disliked by famous clans, even.  your points are the criticism's I was refering to, which you have showed You obviously don't know gaming community, so don't you write on it till you've some sources. You cut away more, if not most, imortant sentences instead.149.225.96.38 19:36, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 4."and one of the bese simulators availbe to date for close infantry combat." highly pov. Source? Made up. this is general knowledge in the gaming world Which you don't have. Otherwise give evidence of your claim ("bese simulators availbe to date for close infantry combat"). "best" is highly pov anyway.149.225.96.38 19:36, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * 5."Over 4.5 million have registered, a fraction of them have in turn completed basic training. Roughly a couple million down to just hundreds of thousands complete the various training mission." no more than a LIE this off the website, adn supported by other tracking site The game never had millions of players! That was a lie, goddamn! Accounts =! players. A lie like anything else!149.225.96.38 19:36, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * 6."Succesive improvements to the game have staved of the player base declining to much." I don't think so. Proof? actually the game got worse and worse in my opinion and only the advertisement for the game prevented the number from declining.  if you don't know about the succesive releases  ....  the player base spikes after each release look at any player number tracking site I told you: I don't think that's mainly because of the updates. But it could be written that by creating updates for the game, the developers try to keep the player base from declining too much or anything. That would certainly be true.149.225.96.38 19:36, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * 8."Though many innovations were done to increase this realism, such as being put in jail for violating rules, training sessions before doing missions, and being dead until the end of a round when killed." correct in small issues to deceive in big ones, I'd say. don't mislead! im saying whats in the game, the truth Realism has got its own section, which I should imprve anyway. Innovations?? training?? being dead until the end of a round?? 149.225.96.38 19:36, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * 9."one of the primary goals is not to advertise but to allow people who won't or can't join the army, a chance to have see some aspects of the army experience such as training and infantry combat." LoL Yeah sure! this is on there website too Yeah, that's just the intention: give a good impression of the army! They don't want to convey army experience though. So the sentence is superfluous.149.225.96.38 19:36, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * 10."though its generally considered to be a continuation of advertising the armed forces have always done, such as with posters. Other organizations have released free video game to promote there cause, notabley some movire releases. Also, being a psudo-simiulation the game allows peopel who cannot join the military a chance to see some of what goes on. " don't get it right - just get it written, huh?  again, this was on the website Where?


 * 11."They mainly affect the player by restricting access to some servers. If his points are to high or to low some servers do not allow them, though some servers have no restriction. In the game, players with higher 'honor' have better chance of getting there preffered weapon, such as grende launcher. Mainly it servers to prevent player killing, as killing a fellow team memeber results in a big loss of honor, which if done enough mean that the person will not be able to play on most servers. They will have to play on a special training server until they get there honor up about 10 points or so." lack of relevance and even wrong place  this is game details relevant to that section That's not even relevant to ANY section. Besides, I think parts are even repeating with those in "Gameplay"  ---ele9699 149.225.96.38 19:36, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)