Talk:America's Army/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Suggested changes

Here are my suggested changes. First, probably the most obvious, is get rid of traces of bias and POV. The "Realism" section needs to be done away with. Realism in games, especially "violent" games, is a point of contention. The Cheating section should be removed too, as it isn't really noteworthy and not unique (almost every online game has identical cheating problems). Also, remove pictures that aren't directly related to the game (eg the pictures of real-life weapons). This has the side effect of making the article smaller, which is needed, since last time I edited it it was over 32 KB. Anyway, I would appreciate it if everyone else would chip in with their suggestions without resorting to attacks on other editors. I think it is possible to incorporate ideas from each editor in one article; almost all of the reverts made so far have been very hasty in my opinion. Kukuman 01:46, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sure great I would be fine with those changes. Note that I have no problem with User:RememberMe / User:Nightbeast / User:BeOnGuard / 62.134.105.101 / 212.144.105.156 / 149.225.40.78 / etc. adding content about it being for army recruitment (even "propoganda"), etc. and associated links, but he ("they") have never taken me up on the offer, prefering large reverts. I do however think that there should not be a large section on the controversy, because the focus should be on the game. I also refuse to let the page be reverted to that old version, first done by a anonmyous dymaic ip, though now mainly done by nightbeast and rememberme after I refused to interact with the "ip". Ele9699 02:17, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Ele", "you" seem If the focus is on the game, the game as a whole, and not somewhere on in the gameplay, which is only a means to an end, "Controversy" remains one of the most important sections because it explains WHAT the game is about and the EFFECT/result_of_the_experiment (the cause is explained in "History"). This fills the viewer in on WHY the game was made. This is completely about the game, even about the game's situation as a whole, while the virtuality part is out of the picture and in its irrelevance focusing on many and very small details. I've given the main reasons in "Minor mac changes", above.NightBeAsT 20:50, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Realism

I agree partly. First off, realism has relevance not only to the non-fictional part, but also to the fictional. The non-fictional part is informative to both gamers and non-gamers, while the fictional is informative to gamers. The developers claim it is realistic. Realistic, that means, showing reality instead of escaping reality, which games usually stand for. Why play a game for reality when you face an accurate 100% reality in the free of charge game called the real world? Anyway. A claim that something is realistic is equivalent to a claim that something is the truth. What is real, is true. In reality = in truth. So if someone claims the game is 'ultra-realistic' like a newspaper did, or the game 'represents the real army' (instead of 'misrepresents') like the developers said in a statement, it is like making the message called America's Army a statement, a claim. The fact they they claim it is close to reality makes the game similar to an allegation about reality. Of course it needs to be analysed to what extent the claim is true, whether the game is for teaching about reality or for distorting the truth. The realism must of course be differentiated: doom3, for example (ele said this game turned out to be unrealistic) is much more realistic concerning physics, the graphics and sounds. For instance if a zombie in the game happens to touch a ton, it shakes and might fall if it was hard enough. This example also shows where the game is unrealistic: it is science-fiction, the protagonist is supposed to fight monsters in a made-up future. America's Army chose to depict a non-fictional world, which doesn't necessarily make the game realistic. Graphics and sounds, the physics, are only a small part of what the word "realism" all includes. Of course Doom 3 is considered unrealistic immediately, by latest when you see some flying and burning skull want to fly into your face.

Realism has always been one of the most popular arguments players presented for the game. "I like it because it is the most realistic action game out there" blah blah blah. This needs to be analysed. Realism is probably the most important focus that the game has (or not). First question from FAQ: Q: What is the America's Army game?

A: …an accurate portrayal of Soldier experiences … ... Read through all the questions on the FAQ on americasarmy.com and you'll get to know how teaching the developers claim the game to be. If the game's alleged purpose is to teach, it is necessary to check to what extent truth and the game's fiction differ.NightBeAsT 20:50, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Cheating

Certainly most first-person-shooters have problems with cheating, but in other games there are also weapons, and maps, and versions, and communities, and other things pertaining to their virtuality. Also, unlike all these other points, cheating is what the players care about, it is one of the most popular discussion topics in the game, and despite of its age, it hasn't lost topicality. Cheating-section can certainly be put on the same level like the other virtuality-concerning topics, which are: "Weaponry", "Classes and their specific equipment", "Weapons planned for future versions", "Accounts", "Training", "Maps", "Clans" (will later be reintroduced after the article's split, just like more details about "OPFOR Transformation") and "Versions". Also, note that these names that I just wrote are objective while "Training Missions, Medical First Aid" is not for example. "Medical training" is only part of the training and it would be biased if it has such a big proportion of training.NightBeAsT 20:50, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Pictures

Pictures make alive articles so it can only be in the interest of the article to have pictures in general. However, these pictures must fit and be in a fair proportion. Pictures about weapons from reality that are depicted in the game are redundant: that's not the game. Do you think a corpse from reality would fit the article for Doom 3? (I like that example for some reason.) Reality and virtuality doesn't match. I have a picture of Zyda standing in front of a screen with AA (he delivered a speech about the MOVES Institute) and a happy Wardynski also standing in front of an AA screen. I've also shots from the E3 2004 with soldiers advertising for America's Army. Concerning virtuality, I have screenshots about the game, which are fair! This means, they've standard settings of graphics and were taken on the most often played maps. One is the player spawn on hospital (the most often played map) escort team, one depicts a teammate on pipeline (the second most often played map) and one the same guy from the enemy's point of view. As I see you, Ele, have reintroduced the advertising picture from americasarmy.com and labeled it "screenshot". The map it depicts is unpopular, the graphical settings certainly as high as possible, and the situation is rather unusual. I've explained why this picture should not be included to another person already and I don't know why you did it. Advertisement shots by the developers should not be included. I don't support your MILES-shots either. MILES is nothing in the game. Say, are there still servers for it at all? You're overemphasizing this totally.NightBeAsT 20:50, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well lot idea's I would agree, though lot of incorrect things/don't make sense/ things I would disagree. Overall I think I will still go kuks suggestions. I think that will help trim things down. ALso, your shots of e3 could be good too. Ele9699 22:49, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Don't say "I would agree" or disagree. Add further reasons for agreement/disagreement. Or it provokes the idea that you don't have any reasons at all. If you're opposing my view without reasons, my view must be correct - you don't know anything against it, it is reasonable and makes sense. Opposition without reason(s) is opposition without sense. It proves you're opposing for reasons you don't want to express because they're unlogical, unreasonable, self-centered or anything other unacceptable to be tolerated in wikipedia.NightBeAsT 08:45, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well I already issued my earlier response to kukoman suggested changes, and you had yours. The important things is that regardless of the details I didn't change my mind from my earlier position. The reasons details etc. for the most part had already been gone over both in yours and earlier posts. Ele9699 18:07, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ok, ok, I get it. As Kukuman states cheating and realism ought to be removed with you agreeing on that, I conclude that you are in favor of "remove" rather than "move" irrelevant stuff and I hope you're talking of in general instead of thinking "cheating and realism was written by others.". Am I right in guessing or not?NightBeAsT 00:33, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Im not entirely sure what your saying here, but certainly those sections need to be at least overhauled, or maybe just trimmed down. For example, maybe just include the aspects of realism that are uniuque to AA. Ele9699 22:06, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Don't mean to get embroiled in any of the controversy this entry seems to breed -- just mean to point out that portions of the "ghosting" / "cheating" section are duplicated across two successive paragraphs. Could benefit from a spot of tidying-up... how to do so in a nonpartisan manner I will leave to the brains here 8) Pseudo Intellectual 18:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Propaganda?

As i see it, America's Army is propaganda software, with the purpose of recruit young americans. It is the largest and most ambitious investment in propaganda software in the world. This is what is most interesting about this game, seen from a larger, NPOV view, and I belive it should have have main part in the article.

But should we talk about propaganda, or commercials?

• The word commercial is when a firm tries to give the public a posetive view of a comercial product.
• The word propaganda is when a government tries to give the public a certain believe or ethic.

America's Army is produced by the government. It's purpose is not to sell any comercial product, but to give the belief that the US army is "good". It fits best with the word propaganda.

There is probably a lot of people who don't belive it is propaganda. It would be great to hear their views. I would especially like to hear what they believe the purpose of the game is, if not that of propaganda.

I will do my best to stay on topic, and keep to clear, logical argumentation. I hope others will do the same.

--Kasper Hviid 16:26, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wow dude you off topic- There is little or no debate over it being a massive advertisement for the us military, at least not from me. 1) The problem is that the focus needs to be on the game, not on papers written about it. 2) you welcome to add these idea's to the article, just not by reverting the entire page to a old version. Ele9699 16:56, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Kasper, most of the discussion page is about Propaganda (mainly in archieve 1, but also in archieve 2). The result is this discussed but not current version [1] if you're interested in the topic. At the moment there's a dispute so the site got frozen.NightBeAsT 20:50, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes I was obviously talking about the current discussion. Furthermore its very misleading to say that page is the 'result' of discussion. Not only were many things added that were not discussed, but the majority of changes were left not because you reached a compromise, but because they got tired of arguing and undoing your reversions. For example, take your "discussions" with a user andre, it ended with I quit, people. I can't deal with this page anymore and Nightbeast/anonymous editor's nonsensical arguments. Sorry. Andre (talk) 20:21, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC). Ele9699 00:56, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That's YOUR opinion. As I see you're helplessly trying to gain support by the old opposition, so far unsuccessfully. What do you expect? Do you actually think just by being against me and pretending to be in the support of the "out-dated" (<- in your words, wouldn't it be?) opposition would give you any support? Be right, and you'll have support - be wrong, and you won't. Get used to it.NightBeAsT 08:45, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well the current discussion is the current discussion, thats not really my opinion. Im not neccisarly looking for support, just involvement and in that case neither, I was citing it as example of somoen response to your behavior. Also, im not 'against' you either really, as we agree on a lot basics things. Such as the need to mention how it was for army recruitment, about the moves inst. etc, really. Not that we don't have differences, but at least on some 'core' issues. Ele9699 18:07, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, what I was talking about was why Andre left. He said it was because of a lack of time or something and I said it was because of the fact his version was protected and because he couldn't give ANY reason - however irrelevant - why my last edit should have been "vandalism" or anything else besides a reasonable change. But that's history and redundant anyway.

Sure, you were looking for support, but not for impartial support. Back to topic: our versions' differences conflict with each other. And there can only be ONE article.NightBeAsT 00:33, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ele9699>> I agree that the article should be about the game. But "about the game" is NOT just about the game from the players point of view, where we look at the gameplay, weapons, classes, cheating etc. It should also address what the reason is for the US army to produce the game. 99 % of all games are produced to be sold, where America's Army to 7.5 million Dollars are given away for free. From any other angle than that of the players, this is what make America's Army interesting.

--Kasper Hviid 22:05, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ok once again, AA is not a commercial product, its a goverment product. Saying that its not a commercial product is meaningless. That is also a very narrow defintition of propoganda, as it can came from other organizations besides a goverment. Neverthless, the game has the purpose of aiding recruitment among its goals. Its the official game of the us army afterall, and it should be mentioned, but it should not dominate the articles content which is already overloaded as it is. In depth analysis of papers written about the game and other aspects need there own space, like how is done elsewhere in the wikipedia. Ele9699 22:42, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, actually in depth analyses of small, virtual issues should have its own, small place while a summary of university material, including an explanation what America's Army is exactly and what was its reception/effect is adding a crucial contribution to the big picture. Getting stuck on small gaming details without context is everything but what an article needs. It's like an interpretation of a poem describing the first letter of every first line although this has doesn't contribute to the big picture at all - it is beside the picture, it is correct, yes, maybe, but it's got no relevance. Controversy states what THE GAME is, the virtual part states what is IN the game. If the article should describe THE GAME, and not somewhere lost in the game, you know what has more relevance very well.

I will not comment on propaganda any longer. The discussion with two users created over hundred kByte of text and if you think this discussion is incomplete to any extent, you can discuss it with your history teacher if you like. I will not comment on propaganda as it seems to me to be a distraction, making an attempt to avoid commenting on the current dispute because you seem to know you're wrong. It is obvious that you only commented little on what I wrote, helplessly trying to take advantage of another oppurtunity to distract. Since the original version was discussed THROUGH, it has grounds. What was not discussed in it, was not ignored but agreed on. Your version ignored what was discussed and needs to be discussed at the same time. You cannot raise objection because you cannot give reasons other than 'I oppose because it's mine'. That's why you only discuss a bit, saying "We agree on some, disagree on others" as if you could only say that you disagree.NightBeAsT 08:45, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What is important for me, is that a the reader who read the article will be informed about the purpose of the game, and about the gameplay. The first should not dominate the article, as Ele9699 states, but it still requires a certain percentage of the article to be explained. If the article is too overloaded for that, we will have to remove something.

Ele9699, if you feel that the propaganda issue is not discussed throughfully, it will of course needs to be continued. However, I hope that you just wanted to point out weaknesses in argumentation. Anyway, NightBeAsT said youre were runing another disbute, so let's put the potential propaganda discution way for now. --Kasper Hviid 10:52, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Americas Army was intended to be a recruiting tool. It was an intersting thing when the US government thought of this idea.--Fissionfox 10:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Terrible

I just stumbled over this looking for info on the game and this has got to be one of the worst articles on the Wikipedia. I read about 20 lines down and had to give up... The total lack of grammar is making it unreadable. Why is it protected in such a terrible state? Please fix :) Preisler 01:29, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It was protected because of an edit war. I made copyedits in the past but the article was protected before I could make a copyedit on the latest revisions. Kukuman 01:41, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Unprotected

The article has been unprotected and I have made some changes to the article, mostly what we discussed here. Kukuman 23:01, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Fine. Then we can update to the current discussed, agreed on and basic version again. This here is my last week in which I've almost no time but the good news is that after this I'll have several months free for this article. :) Ele, if you think I'd give up the article to pointlessness and anarchy, you're miscalculating the situation. I've spent almost half a year on this very article already and - maybe you won't understand this - I'll protect its progress and quality for the years to come. You might have had more time than me while I only was right and had reason, but I'll soon have time again so look forward to it :D.

Kukuman, as you've deleted sections for irrelecance not according to the relevance-ladder (what is LEAST relevant should be excluded FIRST), I've now done so myself up to Gameplay like a user proposed on the talk page without facing any objection. As you all seem to agree on the small-article attempt excluding irrelevant parts instead of the long-article attempt moving irrelevant parts, I've fully realized the change and will now call the version the "current version" which should be our basis. This must be like this because the version should proceed, not restart. We cannot leave behind progress once achieved just because one user thinks the article should glorify the game instead of the standards of Wikipedia. By latest next week I'll have a look at ANY edit made in the article to see if I haven't forgotten any parts that were reasonable to change, so your constructive contribution will not get lost under any circumstances.NightBeAsT 16:11, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Bond, I know you can't stand me but that's all but a reason to start lying. There are TWO possibilities to handle the article: ONE delete irrelevant information, TWO move irrelevant information to neglect them. OTHERWISE the article would be BIASED because the proportion of relevant information would be neglected in favour of a spamming uniformative insider information overkill whose importance is next to nothing. There is no other way than these two ones to keep the article UNBIASED. So you're claiming the status quo is BIASED? Proof?! Your allegations are as weak as your lies, lies such as: "no one agreed to that". Look at what Mediaright wrote! I agreed to that, RememberMe agreed to it and NO ONE disagreed = 100 % agreement = unanimous agreement. If you're in favour of the big-article solution, do it yourself. You're still disagreeing only because you won't agree with ME as a person. LolNightBeAsT 18:41, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh,I see why you're participating again: the other version included "serious game" and the advertisement picture. A screenshot is not an advertisement picture, and they all rejected "serious game", especially the neutral observers, who even doubted the existence of that at all. But I guess it is easier to some to click on "edit" than to accept the truth and bow to reason.NightBeAsT 19:06, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

WTF are you talking about. No where in this discussion page was it ever decided to delete half the page of RELEVANT information about the game. Sorry. This page is about the game. I guess you don't get that. K1Bond007 19:42, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

I wonder if you could read as well as you can curse ("WTF". Hope you're not getting into personal attacks again). Read through what Mediaright wrote and its replies. There are two ways, like I said. If you want the big-solution, do it. Until then the small version remains. There's no other way in this except for BIAS and I think that JUST what you want. Remember: the page is about the P-R stunt America's Army. The developers didn't spent any money for a computer game. The actual game is just a means to an end and 1/3 is rather too much than too little. You still couldn't point out BIAS in the basis version. What's your idea? Just express an allegation at the top of the page to make the article look biased? No, forget it. Prove or yield.NightBeAsT 20:00, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Because I want the page to have information on the game instead of what you call a "P-R stunt America's Army" that it's bias? This article is about the -game- plain and simple. Theres another article devoted specifically to the controversy of it. What was your reasoning for removing the versions section? No one agreed to that. What was your motive for replacing the history of the game with incorrect information... such as 2.3 being Q-Course. 2.3 is out and is called Firefight and has nothing to do with the planned Q-Course addition. You respond saying look at what Mediaright wrote and it's replies, but there is no real discussion there. It's just you and your opinion of the article. No discussion, no consensus. This page needs a complete rewrite and an overhaul and the changes you made were not for the better. K1Bond007 20:45, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

I've said two or three times already why the other parts are less relevant so please find the line and comment on that instead of beginning once again. This beginning reminds of the "new" versions of the article as well: always restarting. This is not progress, this is just inefficient, this is a progress to a move backward. Can it be called "new"?? Anyhow. You said "no one agreed to that". Mediaright proposed it, I agreed, RememberMe agreed, and no one disagreed meaning they didn't mind-> they agreed. Of course they read it. To me, too, this step is a double-edged sword, because as you can see "Realism" and "Cheating" and also a bit of "accounts", "Versions" and "weapons" were written by me to a great extent. I do not mind if it is deleted because doesn't fit the article. I do not really mind if it is moved and thereby neglected because then the information isn't lost but fairly neglected. In fact I do not care whether possibility you all agree on, but the biased way is no way at all. It is biased, not because of the information, but because of the proportion of information. Since I don't think ONE computer game needs TWO articles and since it would take more work for all of us, I'm in favour of the shortcut-solution, and won't establish the long-solution. Anyone else would have to do that but then I'd have an eye on the other version too. Since I'm short of time this weak, I've established the shortcut-version already, so this is at least an unbiased solution. If you want to keep "Bias"sign or not, does not matter but after two weeks or so and no proven allegation I'll delete it so it can no longer mislead. I'm sorry Qcourse 2.3 Dogfight 2.3 ..whatever.. mistake. Such a little incorrect line can be fixed within seconds. But I won't have time to check all the edits till next week.NightBeAsT 21:35, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

leaving

I give up on this article. I thought it was going the right direction with the removal of useless cruft but now the cruft has reappeared worse than ever. I'm giving up on video game/computer game articles completely since this happens over and over again with these. You guys have your fun. --Kukuman 01:30, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, if you leave, Ele has achieved JUST what he wants: successful aggravation of the article in the form of a spam-edit-wave as means of punishment, punishment that he wants to make use of any time he is unhappy about something and unhappy means that his edits are not accepted. If such stubborness and dogmatism against all reason and purpose of wikipedia is tolerated, wikipedia CANNOT work. I thought discussion could work but for discussion not only a reply is required but an open mind on both sides. Just to reply on the talk page to pretend to care about other opinion but ignoring them is not what I consider a discussion to be. Statements and arguments are enough here already but Ele seems to come to a different conclusion than me for some reason and since his edit-rampages continue even worse than before, we need some kind of neutral RULING referee here. Ele has already had his version, the "worst" version of the article according to User:Preisler, frozen for two weeks by now, two weeks too many. I consider it even a destructive fact that a spammer gets his version frozen only because he's increased the chance of his version being frozen through the dominating number of edits and because his number of edits were the reason for the page protection, but now such a lot of time has passed and still his version is there, because the discussion isn't over, because he doesn't want it to be over, because he knows he can only delay the reconstruction, because no neutral observer has had the power to make a decision here. My consequence:

next step of dispute resolution: survey on the question whether the article should be

1) the short-cut version of the basis version but focusing only on what really matters (history, controversy, gameplay)

2)Two articles: Short-cut version + referral to a collection of irrelevant sections so they're fairly neglected.

3) a modernization of the basis version with its less relevant sections (like accounts and cheating and weapons etc.)

4) Ele's version with its emphasis on irrelevant sections (eg map and class descriptions) and irrelevant details to draw attention from the relevant ones + wilful neglection of the intention, message, controversy and reception of the game (Controversy) --> bias

I'll have the survey conducted tomorrow and will set the deadline on next monday. After that I'll surely start with the next steps of conflict resolution, up to arbitration committee. I'll revive the article again, no matter how many years your edit outbursts will be sustained, Ele. You can convince me with reasoning, Ele, not with overflow of energy wasted on destroying the article.NightBeAsT 17:06, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually the sections that Kuko wanted removed (cheating, etc) were already left out and remained so. Also, the extra info was added, but also condensed down- and another section trimmed out as well. The large sections on the controversy are not deleted, they have there entire page! Finally, your welcome to edit in your idea's to the page- something you have never done. If you think things are missing from the page just add them! We'v already discussed the major issue's but I don't even now where you stand in terms of what you want added, becuase you'v only done large reverts. 18:35, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Meant by 'useless cruft' is completely irrelevant information IN GENERAL, not specifically irrelevant information also revealing the negative side of the game or written by someone else. If you delete due to irrelevance, you don't only delete parts somewhere in the middle of list of relevance, but also what is below, what is even less relevant. Before you delete "peter has once seen the president", you delete "peter has eaten breakfast 234 days ago". I explained why the other sections were less irrelevant than "cheating" already. Just because YOU wrote mainly about less relevant issues is no excuse at all to keep them in. And don't you tell me speculations about weapons that might be included in following versions of the game are more relevant than all about player accounts. The "honour" and all that is one reason why so many still play the game, therefore it contributes A BIT to the big picture of the game. OH, but I see it wasn't written by YOU! That's why you deleted it with a smile on your face for irrelevance but kept alive such idiotic nonsense as map descriptions or weapons names because they were written by you. In what way do they contribute to the big picture??! "Oh, there are weapons in the game!! Never knew that!! That's surprisingly for a first-person-SHOOTER!! Now I understand the recruitment experiment America's Army!!! That's why they spent millions of dollars!!".

So controversy was not played down?! I think differently and so do you. Or don't you?? Fine I will accept that you are serious and that's why you won't have problems with the irrevance sections being moved to another article and linked to by "America's Army (small issues)". Or like I said, remove these other issues. That's the only two unbiased choices. If you keept "your" version, you'd only apply the rule of irrelevance to topics you don't like personally.

I'm welcome to edit my ideas back in?? I've an idea! Let's just make the article conform to the standards of wikipedia! My ideas are: either the redundant crap is removed or played down by moving, you know, so it gets "an entiiiiiiiire paaage" for itself. THAT'S THE MAJOR ISSUE. With your redundant information you're not only playing down the more relevant ones, you're also achieving an information overkill. I cannot realistically depict anyone caring about such crap as map names or fireleader if the user has already played the game. If he hasn't, he couldn't care less either. So since you're not a hypocrite but you really think "Controversy" is happy about having an eeeeenttiiiire site for itself in a peaceful environment, you can just as well move the irrelevant portion onto this site instead. (sorry for sarcasm) NightBeAsT 19:48, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, I've changed my mind now. I don't think a survey would make much sense because I don't think you - Ele - would agree on 1) or 3) anyway, so to achieve a compromise, I'd also agree on 2) [4) is of course out of question] and I'd create the version myself. I will have finished it by wednesday week and I will include all the reasonable edits that I'd ignored so far and put all sections that are out of the picture to another page. I'd best do it myself because I can no longer see such POV redundant anti-wikipedia crap like "A large part of its success can not only be atributed to it being a US_Army game, but by simply being a free first person shooter. Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory is another free FPS has done even better during the same time period, much better then its nearly identical predeccesor Return to Castle Wolfenstein, a game which must be purchased." (source: link to "his" controversy) one recent edit by you, Ele. What possesses you??? Now, do you think you could do whatever you want to here??? Do you look down on the concept of wikipedia that much?!? At the moment you still have energy, the power to edit and time. I'll soon have both energy and time and if that article vandalism continues, it will soon reach the arbitrary committee, where neutral observers do have influence. How are you going to justify your edits?? Delusion of grandeur is no excuse at all. You're NOT the centre of the universe. Also, stop believing it's YOURS. I think you believe so because of several clues, for example on your talk page: "Users with dynamic IPs are not allowed to post on my talk page".

Now, to come back to the version, I will also add a few lines to the three main paragraphs. For example the army's past with video games before their breakthrough with AA, why the game can be considered a statement and I'll add some new lines for "gameplay" as well. I'll also include pictures like I once announced, I mean pictures in connection with the game (project), not pictures of the real army's weapons or so. When writing an article about Platon, you just don't add a picture depicting a TV with the headline "This man existed at a time when you couldn't watch TV" (or something incoherent like that) either. Where you don't agree, Ele, don't revert it back or don't you want to apply on your own rule of not reverting anything? If any edit of you will not be included, I won't have ignored it, but disagreed with it and will be able to justify my rejection as well. Just ask. I do that although you've ignored other edits (even widely agreed on edits) and outcomes of discussions (e.g. serious game, advertisement shot and game popularity <- I'll come back to that) yourself, but I like the moral principle that an unfair action on one side doesn't justify unfair actions on the other. My compromise shouldn't be considered that I give in or that I would think I was wrong, and insisting on your extreme version won't make me approach it more and more. I cannot stand it when I propose a fair solution instead of an unjust request on my side and when a person insists on an opposing unjust request only to demand a solution somewhere between fairness and his request. Bad explanation. Okay. For example when someone has the unjust request of adding "This game is awesome" while the other has the unjust request "This game sucks", then the fair solution would be "The quality of the game is a matter of opinion", but when someone starts with "The quality of the game is a matter of opinion" and another instists on including "The game sucks", should the former give in and write "The game is not so good"?!? If I have a look at your first changes, Ele, I already see where the basic information conflics with yours. Examples.

You replaced "US Army (MOVES Institute + students from the Naval Postgraduate School)" with "US Army (MOVES Institute, other army organizations)" WHAT OTHER ARMY ORGANIZATIONS??? You just made that up, eh?

You replaced "AA- July 4, 2002" with "AA- July 4, 2002 AA:SF- November 6, 2003". You can include the release of America's Army for game consoles but not the release of a redundant upgrade! Just because no one agreed on splitting the article into "America's Army:Recon" and "America's Army: Special Forces, you just cannot ignore it. An update that changed parts of the name is nothing more than an update that changed parts of the name! How about "America's Army: Organisations". Also another redundant change of the name. America's Army has been released ONCE! When the console version are out, then it will be changed.

. . .

About the game's popularity. I might not have expressed myself undestandably and you were too lazy or dogmatic to ask me or you misunderstood me. I heard the game's "Number of players" is the number of accounts and it all ties up: 1)How can you count players? Always changing IPs and providers make it impossible. But can you count the number of accounts? Of course you can. 2)why does the number of players increase all the time? People create more accounts than they delete. 3)Why does the number of players NEVER fall? Accounts can NEVER be deleted. 4)Why can accounts not be deleted? Even banned accounts are not deleted. Answer: Why should they let the number of players be allowed to fall. They boast about it like children and make people wrongly believe they had that many players. 5)Why is the number called "REGISTERED players"? What do you do to register? Answer: create an account. 6)How can they keep up the lie? Answer: how can you 100% disprove it?? Does anyone have access to their database??? 7)Does anything conflict with the theory of it being the number of players? I found nothing. Can you find anything??

Also, note that even if it were not like that, which is unrealistic but you cannot disprove there statement without having access to the source, you just cannot accept the statement the game has 12345 players as if they had the infallibility-dogma of the pope in 19th century! The number of players is MISleading and claims that AA is the most popular computer game ever, which is ridiculous. That's why only the number of players playing together at the same time will be included with the number of Counter-Strikes as comparison. Only this way is Npov while keeping your change borders fact-vandalism to distort the truth.

But I will not touch your version and change it because then I would not only include the correct change but also confirm other senseless changes by you as if they all had a right to exist in an ENCYCLOPEDIA! My consequence: overhaul of the article.NightBeAsT 23:29, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Versions

Why was the section versions removed from the page -again-? I'm not going to argue much of the latest revision (I haven't read it, just skimmed), but the versions section was very notable to the page. K1Bond007 22:35, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Honestly, why should they be included? It is true information, sure, and you don't find that so easily on the net, but c'mon: who could need that?NightBeAsT 22:52, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Who knows. You shouldn't pick and choose information to add because you don't feel someone would look for it. Why does Mozilla Firefox have a section on it's release history or any other software product for that matter on Wikipedia. If you don't want to list it, then write a paragraph about the releases or the notable ones. Some add news maps, new weapons, etc some are just security fixes and aren't really notable at all. You may just be able to insert a few sentences here and there in the history section to cover this. Overall, it's notable information that should be added. K1Bond007 23:01, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

In AA there you can only play the most current one because the other don't have any servers. It's not like you could just say "this version is better. Let's play it". I must admit that I found it interesting as a player how many versions were before the first one I've played but there was nothing else interesting about that. The rest of the text is far more interesting for gamers but it is also interesting for those who examine the game while versions could only confuse them. There are far more interesting things than version that even had to be neglected, e.g. America's Army: Soldiers. But then again you could write hundreds of pages about the game if it isn't summarized, which this one research paper demonstrated and what it wrote was even more interesting than "versions". To me version would be an information overkill. Would it be okay for you to put "versions" on another site and link it so it is played down but can be used for those that are interested in it? The AA-site is pretty big anyway.NightBeAsT 23:15, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Is it wise to be putting UE engine version 2.5 from version 2.4-2.9 when there isn't even a version 2.7, 2.8 or 2.9 and they could possibly create a 2.10, 2.11 or whatever, all on the UE2.5 engine? Also, saything that AA 3.0-3.9 will use UE3.0 when all we know is that 3.0 will use the UE3.0 engine. It's could end up on the UE3.5 engine, or anything else. It's just unfounded speculation.---OOPSIE- 16:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)