Talk:America's Army/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

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.

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)

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.

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

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]." [1]

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)

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)

The movie Starship Troopers (1997) shows Mobile Infantry recruits showering together. Straight men shoudl just get over the gay thing - but that's not the point. I thought the Army's opposition was that romantic entanglements could impair a unit's efficiency. "That may be your way soldier, but it's not the Army Way!" Egmason 12:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)