Jump to content

Talk:America's Army/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

I quit

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)

(Deleted Flame [[User:GregNorc|GregNorc|Talk]])Policy: "Do not protect a page you are involved in an edit dispute over." Thus you totally ignored that one. Your friend called what I did "vandalism". However, it was not http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism . If it was something then it was stubbornness but that's not vandalism and I didn't revert the page but create improved ones. I did most of the article from the correct dates of all versions over to the correct history and to gameplay. I only tried to improve it so it wasn't even stubborness, I kept my mind open all the time. You? You had it locked and tried to dig in the same aspects of the conversation we already had again and again to distract. You changed the article in your favour, (Deleted Flame [[User:GregNorc|GregNorc|Talk]]), since you were the ones without objective ones (deleted inflammatory comment) The very least thing you could do is open the main article again and let it improve. Before I came, before I affected the page, it looked like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=America%27s_Army&oldid=7907161 Now, with the version I'd like, it would look like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=America%27s_Army&oldid=8163028

When all is said and done

IF ANYONE OPPOSES MY PROPOSAL OF CHANGE OF THE AAO-ARTICLE, EXPRESS IT (with arguments) NOW, OR REMAIN QUIET AND ACCEPT IT. IF THERE'S NOONE OPPOSING IT, I'LL CALL THE DISPUTE, THE EDIT CONFLICT, FINISHED IN TWO DAYS AND OFFICIALLY CALL FOR IMMEDIATE UNRPOTECTION OF THE SITE.
I don't think anyone agrees with your "proposal" to be flat out honest here. I've opposed it as well as two others. You can't just "call the conflict" because you've driven everyone away. This is supposed to be a time of compromise etc, but nothing has been compromised on. The best we did there was decide that we can use that one screenshot, which regardless of that you went and overwrote. Shame. K1Bond007 18:04, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, but I see neither you nor anyone else opposing the version. Just you and two other guys REVERTED it obviously without thinking about it. You're still not opposing anything with arguments but thanks for letting me know you're against it. But the simple fact that you're against it provokes a "I don't care feeling" unless you add the why-part to the fact that you disagree.

LOL we told you many times. It was either reverted due to copyright infringement or because it was extremely POV. I don't think it's that hard to understand. The "why part" has been explained so many times on my end it's pointless for me to continue to type it out. You don't get it anyway.

You claimed a very old one (it is not the version we're discussing right now) was a copyright infrigtion but I don't believe that either. It belongs more to a copyright infrigation than just that one sentence appears from one article with copyright in another article. It wouldn't make any sense, you know that. And you even exaggerated that claiming it was even more a copyright infrigation when I changed some words in that old version. From a logical propsect it wouldn't make ANY sense at all. From the legally prospect, of course, it wouldn't make any sense at all either. But we're just talking about this very old version. I don't think it's that hard to understand either. You also failed to explain why it was POV. I replied to any of your pointless accusations and you started to change the topic and just didn't reply anymore... Now you're digging again in that old stuff only to confuse persons reading this and trying to delay the outcome of the solution of this. There hasn't been any why-part for the version I'd like to realize either so it's indead pointless for you to say anything against it since there's nothing against it.

You see? Just like at school: opinion+REASON FOR OPINION. I've driven no one away. The simple fact that there were no arguments against my version and the simple fact that the other version is protected (for own stubborness) drives them away. It's time for a compromise???? The last version I wrote WAS a compromise but it was rejected for being a compromise and not the same version as before. (I don't care a damn about the "screenshot". The one now is still advertisement for the game like the one before. It's just that it was the cover of the game. There are two options: either screenshot or cover. I picked "cover" because you would have opposed any screenshot anyway. "Your" old "screenshot" wasn't even a screenshot, it was just an advertisement picture for the new maps from the main page of the game. How many times do I have to explain to you this?? You're always trying to dig in what has already been went through.)

You're so blind to whats going on here it's disgusting. Andre quit or perhaps you've forgotten. I know I said I quit in the past, but until some sort of compromise or someone else enters the discussion, I'm done with the article. I'm tired of your BS. K1Bond007 01:58, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

Why's that disgusting? Because someone had other views than you? Because this someone could argue more reasonable than you and had something like arguments? Or are you trying to combine your allegation with the fact that Andre quit. Of course, he does! He's had HIS version protected, he knew that he couldn't come up with plausible arguments and why should he waste his time distracting and digging despite the fact that it's HIS version protected?? You still haven't come up with reasons against my compromise-version and don't you come up pretending you're trying to search for a compromise because a compromise was what was pointlessly ignored, called "vandalism" (to have the other version protected and chosen) and then NEITHER OF YOU HAD AND STILL HAS NO ARGUMENT AGAINST MY COMPROMISE-VERSION (as you can see, the section "still to change" is still not opposed).

Here are my objections to the page in its current state - there would be more if I included some of the things you have been trying to add.
  • "The age of U.S. soldiers is merely 20 on average.". This statement is wrong and not all that relevant anyway. A quick google reveals the average age of casualties in Iraq to be 27. I couldn't find the overall average, but I suspect it to be older than 20.Grover9 05:51, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why do you say it's "wrong" if you haven't found the average age of a US soldier on the internet? How do you know? It might be wrong, it might be right. But it is irrelevant at any rate so leave that sentence out.62.134.104.253 15:23, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • "America's Army is a figurative and written type of message presentation". I'm not sure exactly what this bit is trying to say, but it needs rewording.Grover9 05:51, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Any suggestions?Nightbeast 21:57, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • The game doesn't use the term Terrorist. The enemy are always referred to as Opposing Forces, Resitance Forces or simply Enemy Forces. Americas Army is not a SWAT vs Terrorist game like counter-strike. I think we should pick a term for each side and use it consistently throughout the article, otherwise it gets too confusing because of both teams seeing themselves as US forces. Opposing Forces is probably the clearest and most neutral term for the enemy.Grover9 05:51, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sorry but you must be kidding, grover: at least the map descriptions of 9 different maps refer to the enemies as terrorists or terrorist forces. And America's Army IS a governmental power vs Terrorist game with the player always seeing the enemy as terrorist and himself as SWAT or US Army or whatever.Nightbeast 21:57, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I did actually check the descriptions, but must have missed the ones that called the enemy terrorists. Anyway if the game calls them that, then its fine in the article.Grover9 06:18, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • "Unlike in Counter-Strike, you can't join the "Terrorists" and you don't buy your equipment". That tells us nothing about Americas Army, only that it doesn't do something that counterstrike does. What does Americas Army do instead? Some of this is convered later on in the US/OPFOR transormation section, but I think that information should be integrated into the gameplay section.Grover9 05:51, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Comparing CS's gameplay with America's Army, there are only these few differences. Some like CS, others don't but still many millions of gamers know CS so it might make sense to compare these two. To examine the hand out of the weapons in the game or the US/Opfor transformation would take too much space in the gameplay-section but it shouldn't be left out or otherwise players would think it's completely like CS.Nightbeast 21:57, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I just don't think refering to counter-strike so many times helps explain anything at all. Many people don't play counter-strike and to them the article is going to be confusing.Grover9 05:51, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As I read through the sentence, I must admit it's indeed a bit confusing. Maybe a reference to US/OPFOR Transformation could fit. Something like "(read more at US/OPFOR Transformation, below)". Or the entire paragraph about the transformation could just be ushered there instead of in the category "Realism" (I don't don't think it has much to do with realism... which doesn't mean it's unrealistic but it's just a feature that isn't connected to realism. But then maybe the "Gameplay" section would become to large... "and you don't buy your equipment" is pretty confusing at any rate. The reader won't get to know how the class selection actually works. I don't think the allocations of weapons should be left out, but it shouldn't be explained to detailed either. The reference to CS isn't necessary either but, like I said, these two points shouldn't go unmentioned.62.134.104.253 15:23, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • "In contrast to Counter-Strike, the developers of America's Army have done little so far to prevent spying ghosts from communicating with those still playing.". What does mentioning counter-strike add to the article? It would be better to compare to UT2004 which has built-in voice chat and uses the same engine as Americas Army and mention how this feature should be appearing in a future version of Americas Army and should solve the majority of the complaints regarding ghosting.Grover9 05:51, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Built in voice chat? Like "Area secured"? That's JUST what CS has. UT2004 has except for the engine (is it UT2004??? You sure??) almost nothing in common with America's Army... and the voice chat of UT is not very comparable either... "YOUUUUUUUUUUUUUU WHOOOOOOOOOORE!", "YOU BLEED BETTER THAN YOU SHOOT!", "PAIN WILL PURIFY YOU!" "AAAAAAAAAAAND STAY DOWN!" "YOU FIGHT LIKE NALI!" "DIE, BITCH!"...Or are you talking of in-game said-by-player voices? But as far as I know CS has the same. But why should that block ghosting to any extent? A strict black-screen after death, just like some CS servers have, could prevent ghosting completely and that the one and only possibility to prevent ghosting. But I don't know, maybe the developers think a black screen might depict death in a way that they don't like.Nightbeast 21:57, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The reason the game doesn't have a black screen is because many players have said they don't want it. It would be useful for competition games though, but I'm not sure if its a planned feature. AA uses the unreal engine(UT2003), which will be updated to the UT2004 engine in the next patch (maybe 2.4 I'm not sure exactly). I meant in-game said-by-player voice chat. You are right, it wont stop people from ghosting, but most people wont bother using 3rd party voice programs anymore and the ingame voice chat doesn't allow dead players to talk to alive ones.Grover9 06:18, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • "Many critics of the game feel that these aspects, normal in first-person shooters, should not be present in something that claims to represent the army, to whatever degree.". Which critics? The gameplay section should concentrate on the facts of the gameplay. This part belongs in the controversy section.Grover9 05:51, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That sentence is totally pointless... That's why I changed it in that other version.Nightbeast 21:57, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • "Ironically, the trigger for most "account thefts" was a warning message on the official website that warned users not to share the file containing the password." How did the warning message trigger "most acount thefts"? I can't see how this is possible. The entire section on account thefts is full of inaccuracies and POV phrasing. You blame the developers for not encrypting the password, then accuse them of causing paranoia for warning them about letting people have access to the file in question.Grover9 05:51, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That's not from me so I can't give you any answer either.Nightbeast 21:57, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • "The first person to reach 100 Honor was a foreigner and has never got his account back.". What are you trying to imply here? That foreigners have their accounts stolen off them for the sole reason of reaching 100 honor? There is no way to know why this persons account was banned (or if this person exists and had their account banned in the first place - link?) so it should be removed.Grover9 05:51, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Same thing: That's not from me so I can't give you any answer either.Nightbeast 21:57, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)


When y'alls've finished this hyar text-mode shoot-'em-up howzabout the last one standing unlock the article and add an ext link to (RIP) Gary Webb's article? Kwantus 17:40, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)

Serious Game

It's interesting that you want to connect your article about "serious game" and America's Army but it's laughable all the same. The public version of America's Army is not even meant to be a simulation. It's meant to be a recruiting and puplic relations first-person-shooter. In what way does it train???? How to act in a battle???? How to kill?! Is the game supposed to make its players a fighting mashine??????? Well, if you think so, then EVERY first-person shooter would do just that. Players of first-person shooters are often good soldiers, they say. If America's Army is a simulation, Counter-Strike should be a (more successful) simulation as well. Or where is the border between a usual and a serious game?? Is there one or is it based on capriciousness?? And "success of America's Army" is based on capriciousness too. How much money did they earn when selling it? How much players are there? How much popularity it has received? Was the game worth its expenses? and so on. Besides, isn't "The Sims" not a serious game and more successful??? And America's Army is the "highest profile"??? What?? How about you explain your thoughts before just adding them to link your article (which should be examined as well in my opinion). Please start collecting background information to present some facts as well.

First off, let me say how sorry I am that your question mark key is sticking. Second, please sign your posts (~~~ or ~~~~), even if you don't have an account. The signatures make it easier to keep track of who is saying what.
Next, yes I did write the serious game article. That's a nice piece of investigation you carried out to discover that. Naturally I want as many links to it as possible, but only appropriate ones.
Now, why did I say America's Army is a serious game? In the industry (the serious games industry), it is hailed as the most successful serious games to date. I know this, I am in the industry. I did not make AA, but know about it.
It is not successful in terms of revenue, it is given away freely. The US Army wasn't expecting to get any income from it. They are using it as a recruiting tool and it has been somewhat successful at that (numbers are hard to come by, but they say they are "pleased" with its effect). It is successful because of its penetration. Hundreds of thousands of people have downloaded and played it. This is exactly what the US Army wanted.
Serious games are not only to train people to perform certain tasks. AA is being used as a marketing tool and it is a serious game because it demonstrates to those interested what their first experiences in the Army may be like.
It is not a more high-profile computer game—I didn't mean to imply that. Of course, it doesn't even come close. It is the highest-profile serious game.
I hope I responded to all of your objections. If you have any more, please voice them here. Peace. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:35, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

I don't know the "serious game" company and I've never heard of it before you came up with it. I don't know what they're hailing there but if you could prove it plausibly, I could believe you. You see what I don't know often ends up with a question mark in my text. Even if the "serious games" company hails the game, it doesn't mean they're right. So I'd like to ask further questions. Success not concerning terms of revenue is vague and can be interpreted according to any POV. The army certainly wanted it to become as famous as Counter-Strike, which they have not achieved at all. Maybe they didn't think they'd achieve it. Success is the attainment of something desired or attempted. Who knows? If the army says they're "pleased", it does not mean they are. I certainly don't believe an organisation that claims all the rules of land warfare are included in Americas army but in reality hasn't included the Geneva Conventions. Sure, it's a game, but if they claim they did, it's a lie. And if they said they are "pleased", I'd like a source too if you want to convince. Now since it's all very vague, the success should not be included in the opening paragraph in my opinion. In History or Controversy, the indisputable success is included. According to your definition of a serious game, it could be worth asking if "The Sims" is not a more successful game. Now I'd like to talk about AAO as a serious game. I've asked for the border between a serious game and a usual game. If the definition is that serious games "train people to perform certain tasks", then every first-person shooter is a serious game because it trains the player to shoot better, to reload a gun, etc.. Then even No on lives forever is a serious game introduction the life of a spy and for example the life in Japan, Nolf 2 has much details that are in Japan as well. Or are these introductions to unrealistic? America's Army training certainly is unrealistic too, maybe MORE realistic, but still unrealistic. Where's the border? Also, if I remember correctly, the army claims America's Army doesn't teach to use a gun in real life. If I wanted to know how life of a soldier in the US army is, I'd ask for the money I'd earn first off all. That would be the first and among others main experience I'd need to know what the Army is like. I didn't learn much about the Army in the game which is my POV. Is the definition of a serious game capriciousness? You still haven't explained why it's the "highest-profile serious game". That's probably POV as well.213.6.36.130

Do you have any source to cite calling AA a "serious game"? How about a cite for it being the "highest-profile serious game"? Unless you do, I'd consider these statements original research. As a member of the industry, you may well regard AA as the highest-profile serious game, but as an encyclopedia, we can't incorporate this fact, even if you can prove it true, unless there are other sources which make the claim first. Wikipedia is not a primary source. anthony 警告 22:20, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Okay, unfortunately I cannot respond to each of your individual questions/complaintts/inquiries. I'll be selective:
  • There is no one "serious games" company. There are many. Probably the most successful one for now is BreakAway Games. They even have a website dedicated to just serious games, located here.
  • From GameDev.net: "America's Army, has become the poster child of serious games, showing what can be done and opening up new possibilities. Built on the Unreal Engine from Epic Games, targeting a demand for a realistic, team-oriented combat game, America's Army has been much more successful than the Army expected." Also, "America's Army... has become a goodwill ambassador to the world, showcasing American values of teamwork and loyalty to the world." Really, all I had to do was type in "america's army serious game" (no quotes) in Google and came up with over 10 pages of hits. Many relevant hits say pretty much the same thing.
I think I've demonstrated I didn't make this stuff up. I'd like to restore the deleted information, but I won't if it's going to ignite an edit war. Peace. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 08:41, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
Since no one has responded, I guess its okay if I put the reference to Serious game back in. If not, please discuss here. I will put the statement back in within a few days. — Frecklefoot | Talk 17:08, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
I support this. It fits the definition, IMO K1Bond007 18:51, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
No, sorry, but the definition of "serious game" is unclear. AA is NO simulation in my opinion because it does not simulate war. Look at Iraq! Compare these "games". THAT'S modern war. AA is just a Counter-Strike without violence and with some more realistic aspects and bugs and unrealistic aspects and meant for propagating a false image to children and teenagers in the hope that they would be blinded enough to fall for their unspoken and idiotic promises. If you call AA realistic, it is just your POV. Because it is not 100% reality, it is a matter of opinion if you call it more realistic even than Counter-Strike. Realism has no comparable value. Now, it is worse because it pretends to be realistic, which makes those who fall for that promise confuse it with reality - it misleads. I do not call something that is meant to mislead "serious".

I consider your definition of "serious game" crap, it's just an invention like the word "hacker" for players that cheat in the opinion of others. Why link that word and pretend it's more than bullshit? Let's see how the word applies to the made-up definition: AA, which simulates war as unrealistically as Counter-Strike, "[has not been] designed to be a training system[...]". (quote from a report by Michael Zyda (director of the developping studios of AA), Wardynski(America's Army project manager) and Russel Shilling(America's Army lead audio engineer))http://www.npsnet.org/~zyda/pubs/ShillingGameon2002.pdf

This quote is a contradiction even to your definition: "The main goal of serious games is to train users".217.185.104.200 17:18, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The main defintion is that the game is a simulation which no one objects to. It's listed everywhere including the America's Army website. While it doesn't technically TRAIN it TEACHES. The developers have fully recognized this especially with certain TRAINING COURSES such as the Medic's training etc. Read America's Army FAQ. Your statement above comparing hacker to "serious game" is absurd. You need to read that article. There are summits etc based on this emerging genre. Look it up, theres hundreds of websites on it. Including http://www.seriousgamessummit.com/ where they define the genre as: "..applications of interactive technology that extend far beyond the traditional videogame market, including: training, policy exploration, analytics, visualization, simulation, education and health and therapy." -- America's Army fits that definition. This website is also endorsed and sponsered by the U.S. Army's game. See http://www.seriousgamessummit.com/sponsors/ K1Bond007 19:18, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
the main definition is that the game is a first-person-shooter. You don't say "simulation" to first-person-shooters. Of course those who want to speak in support of the game glorify it as a simulation. Basically every game simulates something, every. Now where's the border? There is none, as no game is as realistic as reality and therefore never fully simulates reality.

I'd really be interested in what you learn from the game, I mean, learn in the sense that something useful is provided. Basically EVERY game teaches something, at least, for example that there are bad games. You still haven't explained why America's Army is a serious game but others are not. You could learn how to reload a "Desert Eagle" or something stupid in CS as well. You might just as well call CS a "serious game" as the borders are totally set capriciously. Or Doom3...62.52.37.170 21:28, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Frecklefoot and I have given enough sources claiming that it is. In addition, the game is used a lot internally for training and simulation purposes see: http://www.americasarmy.com/intel/fullstory.php?i=1215
"Leaders from the America's Army game team will be featured presenters and panelists in sessions that cover top line design, production, technology, and assessment issues related to the use of games in education, policy, national defense, homeland security, training and other non-entertainment sectors. Colonel Casey Wardynski, the America's Army game director and project originator will deliver a presentation entitled "Moving America's Army from Recruitment to Testing and Training Platform." The lecture will detail how the America's Army game technology has become a platform and tool for testing new equipment and training, and experimenting with tactics."
Theres no way you can refute this any longer. America's Army fits the definition, plain and simple. K1Bond007 23:14, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice you wrote back. Ow! Damn. America's Army is NOT a simulation and anything but a serious game! It is no more than a normal first-person-shooter - that's the category, not simulation. It's not to teach or train anyone! It's to give a good impression of the US Army, nothing else. No one would use it as training in the army. That would be like a soccer star playing a soccer game to train! A propos: why is a soccer game (like Fifa XXXX) not a simulation? It's certainly utmost closer to reality. In contrast to America's Army, it would 'accurately reflect the nature of the event it simulates'. So it must be a serious game, right? And although it wouldn't really teach or train, soccer games at least not try to mislead. No matter how many commercial websites you list contributing to the new serious word invention, it's still a commercial and unclear definition. What is a "serious" game and what is not remains a matter of opinion.217.185.104.130 20:33, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wow, another opinated comment. Awesome. But wheres your source? There are literally dozens of sources saying the game is a serious game INCLUDING THE U.S. ARMY, which also claims to use the game internally to train and teach soldiers. You apparently can't refute it without inserting your bias. If you can't show proof (evidence) then please abstain from this discussion. K1Bond007 21:46, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Am I God because you cannot disprove I am? No, and it's laughable, isn't it? Now, why don't they prove anything? That would require the truth? Yup. There are literally dozens of sources saying "hacking" is cheating in computer games. The meaning of the word should not be changed. Just because some commercial guys call it a "serious game", it still doesn't mean it is. Or we'd have to give "hacking" another idiotic meaning. The US Army, which also claims the game has MILLIONS of players, the same army team that says violence is discouraged, the same army that claims that less than 40% of the missions in the game depict simulated combat, the same army that claims the US army "is having individual strength and the support of an unstoppable team. It's you at your best. With training, technology and support, you will become stronger, smarter and better prepared for the challenges you face. You will gain invaluable skills, experience and the opportunity to use them while working in a challenging environment. Being a Soldier also means upholding the ideals set forth in the U.S. Constitution, and becoming a respected part of your community. You will discover a life filled with adventure and meet other smart, motivated people like you. Because the strength of the U.S. Army doesn't only lie in numbers, it lies in you, An Army of One."

the same army that even claims they'll send the CIA and FBI after american children because they were cheating.... What is the army on americasarmy.com? A team saying anything that could help make the game sound better than it is. That's their JOB!

"Serious game" is a vague description which was newly invented by some company and does not even fit America's Army. To make it fit, either the game needs to be changed or the definition of the word. It would have to be "a 'serious game' is a first-person-shooter claiming to simulate reality but doesn't" and "Motivation: 1)Development costs, 2)High percentage of the target group, 3)Propaganda is effective. "Serious games (SGs) accurately misinform about the nature of the events they claim to simulate". and so on. The made-up definiton is just trying to magnify.

"If you can't show proof (evidence)[..]" Are we at court or what?? Did you know that you violated the law by posting a link to the site on americasarmy.com about "serious games" because that was prohibited by the disclaimer of americasarmy.com?

Your article, "Serious game", states: "[..]the main goal of a serious game is not to entertain[..]"

OK, let's be in court: Let the EULA give evidence in court.

"I hereby summon my first witness, Mr. EULA. Mr. EULA, what is the goal of the game?" Mr. EULA: "The Software has been developed for entertainment purposes only and is not designed or licensed for any other purpose." "Thanks, Mr. EULA, no more questions. You can ask the witness now, James."

If you don't believe him, you should have read the EULA before signing it. 62.134.104.249 13:46, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wow, what a load of BS. Why not just say "I'm biased towards this game and I disagree"? Please reread the article. It was changed about a week ago. While we may not be in court, we are mature enough that any opinion we have on any sort of discussion taking place here should be backed with proper evidence. Otherwise you're just spewing BS and crap. K1Bond007 20:08, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
Wow is right! All I wanted was a single sentence mentioning that it is the most successful serious game to date. I wasn't prepared for such a flame-fest. The fact it is the most successful serious game to date is undeniable. But I'm not going to start an edit war here--this article has enought fisticuffs going on already. If someone else wants to add this fact, please do. I don't have the bandwidth to justify my simple one-sentence edit any longer. Peace. — Frecklefoot | Talk 22:59, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

I think I've made myself clear and don't need to repeat myself till you accept it. You just do not want to accept it for personal reasons. Change your definition of "serious game" totally till it applies to AA, or change AA till it applies to the definition. "Serious game" is made-up industrial and a frail definition based on POV. A fact is not a matter of opinion. There's nothing else to add.217.185.104.234 13:29, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You've made it clear that you are against mentioning that America's Army is the most successul serious game to date. Do a simple Google search for "Serious Game" "America's Army" (quotes included) and you'll get 10 pages of hits, most mentioning that America's Army is a very successful serious game, some citing it as the most successful serious game. Here's a good one for you: "New take on the game of life". Anthony stopped complaining once I cited sources, you're the only one that seems unconvinced.
Were you actually in the game industry, you'd know about the Serious Games Summit taking place at the GDC this March. It is at least the third Summit of its kind. In fact, the US Army hosted the opening events for one of the summits because of—guess what—America's Army! Perhaps the term "serious game" is made up. But so what? It was constructed to describe a new category of computer and video games. I'm not going to change the defintion of serious game to make it fit just America's Army. America's Army already fits the definition. It is a serious game. I have the Internet and the Serious Games mailing list backing me up. Have you even read the serious game article lately? — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:01, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Oops, wrong word. I entered ' "America's Army" "worst game" '. I had 652 hits - "serious game" only has 289. Now that google is the most accurate encyclopedia or something and a valid argument for anything, we should name the game a synonym for fag (1.790 hits), rape (3.910 hits), crap (11.300 hits), porn (14.200 hits), gay (32.700 hits) or sex (45.000 hits). Yup, the game must be sex. The Internet seems to prefer backing me... Should anyone care because of the only 289 you had?? Hahaha, no! The game is PORN! Let's call it "the most successful crap" on the net instead. Do you see my point? "Eat shit, people! Billions of flies can't be wrong!" (by the way combined with "shit": 25.200 hits).

You cited sources. Big deal. But these sources neither have authority (it's just commercial), nor popularity. Nor do I see why the inaccurate defintion "serious game", which doesn't even apply America's Army, should be propagated here. America's Army is NOT a simulation! Nor is it designed for it. It's aim is NOT to train or teach either. I've said it all before. I won't say it again. After all you can read.217.185.104.145 18:27, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for injecting your bias again. Yet again no source, no evidence, only pure bias. You should feel proud for this. Perhaps we should seek the Wikipedia:Mediation Committee K1Bond007 19:51, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
Geez, sounds good to me. — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:56, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Oh! Sources! For what? And why me? YOU came up with that. Oh well. Bond. Do you know google.com? Use it. That should be enough for the first paragraph. 2. America's Army is a first-person-shooter, not a simulation. It's aim is to influence the players opinion about the army. "We want the whole world to know how great the us army is" or sth and so on, there are enough sourcves proving that. 3. It "[has not been] designed to be a training system[...]" (quoted from above). That's all the evidence needed, is it not? Is anth not clear??? I wonder why you can't accept it... or do you just want to make the discussion page bigger by requesting information again and again about the same thing? Why don't you just read again through what is above? All you can do is accuse of bias and jabber. You can oppose but not with arguments. Statement neeeds argument. You see? That's their fundament.

Oh do that committee or whatever. The problem is crystal clear. You know how weak your arguments are very well. Unless that committee isn't biased, you won't stand a chance.62.52.37.152 20:37, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's so obvious you have problems with America or the U.S. Army that you've for some reason chosen this game and this arguement to tout your beliefs. This isn't the place. This has nothing to do with the greatness of the Army or the lack thereof. IT'S A DAMN GAME. We write FACTS about the game. If you don't like it, if you can't handle it, LEAVE. Wikipedia needs less people like you. This is the most immature arguement I think I've ever been involved in and the sad thing is we've displayed enough sources that there should be no discussion about this at all, yet here you are - FIGHTING in the trenches against the tyranny of the "serious game". Enough is enough. This bullshit needs to end. One way or the other. K1Bond007 20:58, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Selected sources:

See? First allegations, then babbling. You can summarize what you said in ONE sentence: I've found 5 sources claiming it is a "serious game".

My reply: 1st commerical site: industry, which claims it is a "serious games industry" itself (biased)

2nd commercial site: AA developers, that are dishonest when it comes to the game's reputation (like stated earlier), claim their game was used for training and teaching => realism => positive reputation. (biased again)

3rd commerical: bias (US Army) sponsoring bias (Serius Games summit)...

4th commercial: editorial by two guy biased towards the game that have misunderstood sth "4m players" he was mislead too.... "Built on the Unreal Engine from Epic Games, targeting a demand for a realistic, team-oriented combat game, America's Army has been much more successful than the Army expected." Apparently he believes what the army (bias) says without doubting...

5th commercial: Shows that the Army sponsored it. (shows bias)

6th commercial: lol does not even mention "serious game", only the name of "Serius Game Summit"

Is that all?!?! There are dozens of site claiming America's Army is the worst game ever. Now would you allow it to be described like that? No. But "serius game" is allowed, huh? => you're biased 62.52.37.155 21:54, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That's too sick to be true. You're part of an industry claiming it is a "serius games industry" and you create a new meaning for a new word copied from the description "serious" for newspapers. This word has no authority backing (only industrial description) and no Internet one as shown. The parts of the definition you offered is unclear: you stated it can be of any genre, can have any purpose, are run on computers or consoles, they teach users as they play them, by repeating patterns over and over, the player becomes more experienced in the targetted skill and the game entertains and gives an enjoyable experience and the fact that they entertain encourages re-use and that SGs are fun guarantees that users will replay the SG often. These count for EVERY game out there. ('"All games teach," Jim Dunnigan declared' like those serious guys admitted themselves) Besides, "entertain", "high degree of accuracy" and "enjoyable experience" are subjective as well as "simulation" because every game MAY be considered a simulation or a game. How you interpret it depends on one's personal own opinion. If they were 100% realistic, it would not be like that, but, of course, they are not.

Apart from that non-defining part, there is also the defining one.

"the main goal of a serious game is not to entertain" this fits AA, although AA's Eula contradics to this.

"The main goal of a serious game is usually to train or educate users" this does not fit AA. AA's aim is to influence the opinion about the US Army. There are enough sources proving that, even the developers.

"While the largest users of SGs are the US government and medical professionals" Depends on what is a serious game. Sources?

"Motivation

Serious games are developed to train users in a process or event. Three main benefits motivate the development of serious games versus traditional multi-million dollar simulators: 

  1. Development costs
  2. Deployment costs
  3. Entertainment"

AA '[has not been] designed to be a training system[...]'. It would also be like thisMotivation: 1)Development cost 2)Total lack of recruits 3)Propaganda is effective 4)High percentage of the target group 5)Aggressive and innovative experiment

"SGs are meant to train or otherwise educate users" does not fit AA (same as above)

"the customer's aim is not to entertain users" does not fit AA (Eula again)

"will become better trained." I think it fits AA as much as a soccer game trains a soccer player or even less. Sources? No, you claimed they would be better trained.

"Game developers are experienced at making games fun and engaging as their livelihood depends on it. In the course of simulating events and processes, developers automatically inject entertainment and playability in their applications." (BIAS)

Now these are the only defining terms for that word you claim. I'm afraid, these do not fit the game and above all who decides about the defintion? The industry???In your article you accept everything that was said as the truth as if those few (biased) developers had the power to decide about the meaning of words. In fact, you seem to hail "serious games" (no wonder: you described yourself part of it). Just read "Conclusion" and you'll read the most generalised and pro part possible. All you still need to post is "Buy serious games". Review? Criticism? Nothing. Actually "serious game" is a nice invention. It sounds like "serious newspaper" denouncing the other games as gossip. This article is just to propagate how flawless "serious game"s are, your business. That's now what I expect an encyclopedia to be and you perversely demand the right to link it to AA? Wait, I'll invent the word "fuck game", create some sites that claim it to be and then request the right to link it to the AA article, ok? Wouldn't you like it? Biased? No. You'd be reasonable then. Now, you're not reasonable as you want to have it connected to that. That's BIAS. Actually I did not and do not care about "serious game" as long as you keep it away from the article, because it should be a good article, which means objective, informative, it should portray AA as a whole. You accused me of inserting bias, 007. What you mean by that is that I insert the con-part of AA as well as the pro one (which was mainly there before). Apparently you're still angry about "Controversy" section and now you have new energy for a new senseless opposition only for the sake of opposing. You even got Andre back (Yes, I read the talk page!) to have your biased admin-friend oppose it again. Last time he banned for 3-revert-rule only after 2 reverts and a carried out a "vandalization protect" after he wanted to make sure no one edits anything. Of course he couldn't justify the protect, he couldn't even say why his version was better because it was worse and then he left knowing that as lang as the protection lasts, he will have his version secured. Too bad other admins that weren't his friends decided it should be unprotected. Must have annoyed him even more. His hate of >>the person you're well aware of<< is still there, as I see, and he's ready to >>certify (Bond's RfC) in an instant<< at any rate. Although I thought you guys were mature, I've obviously been wrong. >>The person, that you're well aware of, is being (to be absolutely frank) an idiot<<, >> :D <<. When you talked about the comittee, well actually, I thought you to be an idiot. I couldn't work you out. You couldn't have been that stupid. And you weren't. You just try to initiate a biased trial because (just like the wrongfully alleged "vandalization" and "3-revert-violation") you'd certainly like to play "admin and client" again, trying to misuse your power again. Otherwise you wouldn't have tried to get that biased admin. Like you said, you >>just want this done<<.62.52.37.246 13:33, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hahahah I'll get another admin. And another. Hell I don't care. Anyone that visits this talk page and attempts to edit the page knows you're biased. It's time for this immature BS to end, if that means the end result is you getting banned -permanently-. Then so be it. It's now my personal mission to see how far this baby can go. Sorry. I'm sick of your shit and I'm not going to waste anymore my time arguing with you. K1Bond007 16:32, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Luckily the real Bond isn't such a hypocrite. You're the most biased person here and speaking about 'immature', well, I'm not the one flaming here... unlike you... Like you said: you take it personally. But speaking about arguments: I don't blame you. It must be hard to present arguments there aren't so all you can do is allege and allege and allege. (to your recent change. "Overview" should give an "overview" and summarize the most important facts so I'll revert that.)217.185.104.223 17:08, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

At least I present evidence! When have you ever in this debate given us a source for anything? I've started it off giving you at least 5. You, none. So frankly, I'm done arguing with you. Call me a hypocrite. I don't care. We all know what you are and are full of. K1Bond007 17:25, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Oh yeah, yeah, your great sources. Now, you have a handful of weak and biased websites and you base everything on them. You have no arguments. All you do is say: look some biased pages claim it is so it MUST be. What should I do? Post some sources saying America's Army "sucks"? You wouldn't want that either.217.185.104.223 17:33, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A Summit on the genre of the game is biased? The U.S. Army claiming their own game is a "serious game" - a summit they FULLY ENDORSE is biased? Claiming their own game is used internally, is biased? WTF more can you possibly ask for. You're just wasting my time. K1Bond007 17:50, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

A "Summit" by those commercial guys who want that word to exist - a biased one - can say or name itself however they want. The AA developer's enormous honesty can be seen at the number of Total Registered Players. Can't you read? No wonder discussions take that long. You forget what was posted first and want to know the same again.

"The US Army, which also claims the game has MILLIONS of players, the same army team that says violence is discouraged, the same army that claims that less than 40% of the missions in the game depict simulated combat, the same army that claims the US army "is having individual strength and the support of an unstoppable team. It's you at your best. With training, technology and support, you will become stronger, smarter and better prepared for the challenges you face. You will gain invaluable skills, experience and the opportunity to use them while working in a challenging environment. Being a Soldier also means upholding the ideals set forth in the U.S. Constitution, and becoming a respected part of your community. You will discover a life filled with adventure and meet other smart, motivated people like you. Because the strength of the U.S. Army doesn't only lie in numbers, it lies in you, An Army of One."

the same army that even claims they'll send the CIA and FBI after american children because they were cheating.... What is the army on americasarmy.com? A team saying anything that could help make the game sound better than it is. That's their JOB!"

You wouldn't waste time if you got straight to your point. Well, you have no point so I guess it's okay to chatter... and chatter. Like always you try to change the topic or come back to what was before to distract. That tactic of argueing is called "blocking". And I guess I prefer calling your behavior like that rather than mentally considering you stupid. That's the only way I see to work you out. After all (if you were more honest on your profile page) you studied at university. So you can't be that stupid.62.52.37.185 18:11, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:America%27s_Army/Archive_3&oldid=1079603314"