Talk:America's Army/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Gameplay

Quote: added the negative side to your positive one (I kmow I only added the bad before that too))

What the hell? Is this section about the gameplay or is about the controversies of the game. You didn't ADD anything, you replaced. I'm so sick of this article. You can edit and add all the BS you want. I'm done. K1Bond007 18:41, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

I concentrated on the map and objectives of the map "Hospital". It is the map mostly played. I only stated the objectives of one team. Then you came up with the objectives of the other team replacing. Now I came up with the objectives of both teams.

(though some players have multiple accounts) that's too inaccurate. The fact that player accounts don't get deleted and that half of them hasn't even done the training and who knows exactly how many player accounts there are? Can a site that pretends to have over 4 millions players, which is, of course, a lie and that pretends to have included "players are bound by the laws of land warfare" but has never heard of the Geneva Conventions.... There's not even safety like for e-mail providers because they'd even like it when someone writes a program creating ten accounts per seconds which is possible or maybe they made the number up. Who knows? Honesty is obviously not an army value...

Controversy: it is about political themes (I don't know what is meant by 'nationalist' but the game describes the US soldier as superior to the other soldiers. He's more gorgeous, fights for the right cause, fights evil, defends freedom, has the finest special forces, comes from the finest military stations, is supported by allies (but they're uglier than him) is always enthusiastic and so on.... well maybe 'nationalist' doesn't totally fit but political is true). Giving a good impression of the army IS political. Recruitment is related to politics and advertisement. Read the new external link (3.2.)

Gameplay: Don't try to play down what the killing of human beings means even if it could be considered a negative aspect. It's worth mentioning. I know your argument is "it's just a game" and that other games are like that too but if they tell it is a representation of the U.S. Army and their wars, it should be considered as what their enemies are described. AAO really is an interesting game... 62.134.104.30 18:54, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Political themes occur in advertising just as much as they do in propaganda. Ever see campaign ads? "I'm George Bush and I approve this message?" Also, AA is a first-person shooter like any other. What would you expect? You get points for hugging human beings? Andre (talk) 19:29, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

Maybe that's why they call it ELECTION PROPAGANDA rather than election advertisement. If AA was a normal first-person shooter, they wouldn't call it realistic, they wouldn't say it represents the U.S.Army and so on. It's just a logical conclusion that the game rewards and punishes actions. Of course, they punish FF. Otherwise it would be a chaos. But I call it perverse if you call the killing of enemies honorable and "appropriate behavior". There were no own opinions included so why remove it?

Actually, no, it's called election advertisement. At any rate, I added in the sentence "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." to express your POV of this normal FPS behavior being inappropriate. However, making it seem unusual and abnormal for FPSes would be false and POV. Killing enemies is appropriate behavior in FPSes. Andre (talk) 19:50, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

If the "publicity and promotion to further a candidate's chance of being elected top an office or post" is not called "election propaganda", my dictionary lies to us again! Oh come on, this is getting so childish. Enter "election propaganda" into google and compare the results to "election advertisement". It's just that the word "advertisement" sounds better. But it is wrong according to the defnition. No! My point is that the game rewards the killing of opponents lastingly and calls it honorable. That's something totally different! And because it claims to represent the army, the consideration of the opponents is worth mentioning. It could just as well only connect the honor to the time played, if Honor needs to be included.

Yes, it's the name that describes the action as honorable, of course, unlike other games. And unlike other games, it even has a lasting effect. If you shoot someone in Counter-Strike, it gives you some money. It doesn't call the action honorable and when you leave the server, the effect is gone forever. It needs to be mentioned and if you call the international image of the U.S. Army and how they lead wars not a political context, I'd be curious if the word "propaganda" exists in your opinion

Yes, it describes the experience a soldier gets when he shoots an opponent as honorable, as HONORABLE. Lastingly. That's all. There has never been the question if they ushered that on purpose or not (I think they did it, you think different, the answer who's right or wrong is out there.) so I didn't mention it at all. Don't you behave so stubborn and exclude the whole truth about AAO in the article.

Andrevean, just because you added "Though not everybody agrees that america's army is propaganda. It certainly is recruitment adversary" for the word "propaganda" doesn't make the game a recruitment adversary. It just manipulates the NPOV article where the entire definition comes from and added something you can NEVER prove. You don't need more sources to prove it to you, you need a bit honesty and give in or you need counter-arguments.

Well, I don't think anyone disputes that it's a recruitment advertisement. Or do you? However, there is some disagreement regarding whether the game is propaganda. Andre (talk) 01:39, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

As far as propaganda goes, I've made my stance pretty clear. If this were 70 something years ago, I'd agree with you that that the game is propaganda, however, as stated the word propaganda has a negative conotation attached to it now that describes things as deceptive and misleading, two things as far as the GAME is concerned I don't feel are true. Therefore, I feel calling it propaganda is highly subjective and POV. I've never stopped anyone from writing a section on the controversy that it is propaganda, but in a wikipedia article to flat out call it propaganda is wrong. K1Bond007 17:38, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

"I can't understand how anyone can really compare Counterstrike to America's Army. They're really not similar at all. The only thing truly in common is that both are first person shooters and that hardly warrants the comparisons found throughout the article especially the ones where 99.99% of time aren't even comparable such as the sentence about buying weapons in Counterstrike. Why even mention that here?"

Comparison AAO-CS

they're not comparable? so the following points are only exceptions:

a one and only round-based time-limited team-deathmatch, in which you pause for the round when dead, in which you can win the round by either accomplishing the objectives or killing all the enemies, in which the terrorist fight the counter-terrorists, which was for free and popular, which was limited to carrying ONE big weapon and ONE pistol and some GRENADES, whose grenades can be SMOKE, EXPLOSION OR FLASHBANG, in which a nightvision google can be used, in which you have to shout a comment when you throw an explosive grenade with other teammembers alive (Fire in the hole!/Frag out!), in which the player is in the SPECTATOR mode after death, in which a HUD MENU is used for weapon selection, in which you shoot more accurate when you don't move and accuracy gets worse while shooting, in which you aim more accurate when crouching, in which legal cheats for singleplayer (like godmode, noclip/ghost, weapon codes, ..), in which there are no weapons belonging to no one lie on the ground, in which you move slowlier after jumping, in which you can shoot through certain objects, in which usually one time wins and the other looses and only few draws appear but in both games a draw is possible, in which players can be directly kicked by an admin(eg Splinter cell does not allow that) && VOTEKICKED out (CS allows votecasts, so does AAO),whose SOURCE CODE is not published, in which you can COMMIT SUICIDE with a console command, in which the zone where the bullets hits decides how much damage is taken, in which there's a clear distinction between "GOOD" and "BAD" - and they're opposed being forced to kill each other without chance for surrender, in which the weight of weapons is regarded, in which FF is possible, in which walking makes noise, which were the reasons for creating clan wars in leages, in which there's a VIP hunt, in which the corpses don't vanish, NO RESPAWNING TILL END OF ROUND, SPAWNS CLOSE TO EACH OTHER, in which the health is able to be restored during the end of the round and is always restored at a new round, in which the killing of opponents is more rewarded than just with score (money/lasting score,honor), in which a map describtion is displayed on joining, NO MUSIC IN THE BACKGROUND only noises of weapons and footsteps!!!, in which jumping from a high platform causes damage, in which in which you can record DEMOS (+CONSOLE (AAO even uses this console for chatting and DEATH MESSAGES), which have updates that add or remove maps and change the gameplay, +SCRIPTS (setting aliases for CONSOLE COMMANDS)), in which the OBJECTIVES are in a clear contrast and always one team looses after time has passed without eleminating the other team or completing the objective, in which you can chat to the team or to everyone, in which you can't chat when dead, in which you can chat certain audible orders to your teammembers, which do not have other modes like Deathmatch or Capture the Flag as a choice in Multiplayer, which are using GameSpy for the server list, in which there are the weapons M249,M16,AK47, 2 sniper-rifles per team(a strong one and a weak one), in which you can exchange your weapon+ammo with weapons+ammo that lie on the ground, in which you don't aim at the enemy automatically, clans, anti-cheating programs, which are mods (CS: mod of HL; AAO: mod of UT); both specialized in Multiplayer only, in which you you're mostly on foot though containing vehicles (CS allows vehicles in maps, so does AAO), in which there are civilians which you can kill, in which you get punished for killing civilians/hostages, ETC... You can add some more if you like! So far I've been dealing with the fact that the gameplay is very similar. But the main point is that almost every gamer knows Counter-Strike in contrast to Rainbow Six.

WTF. You just described over a hundred video games out there. Rainbow Six, Ghost Recon just for starters. There are literally thousands of video games that are round based drawing a comparison between AA and CS in this fashion is just foolish. Secondly, America's Army is not a mod. It's a full-version game licencing the engine from Epic Games. If I were to use your logic, Half-Life would be a mod since Half-Life isn't an original game engine. It, in fact, is using the Quake engine, but you knew that because look at all the information up there! You can record DEMOS!! YOU CAN DO THAT IN ALMOST EVERY GAME USING THE UNREAL OR QUAKE ENGINE. This is ridiculous. I feel like the only game you've ever played is Counterstrike. What about Medal of Honor: Allied Assault. You can play round based, you only get so many grenades, theres cheating, there's anti-cheats, theres clans, theres enemies, you can record demos! It's JUST LIKE AMERICA'S ARMY! -- but I'm the blind one K1Bond007 23:30, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

There is no need to discuss whether CS is a mod of HL or HL is a mod of Q2 which would implicate that CS can't be a mod of HL..

STOP DISTRACTING FROM THE SUBJECT BY TRYING TO FOCUS ON SUCH IRRELEVANT ISSUES.

If you know any other game that has more in common with AAO, go ahead or yield. There's no game which has all the listed features TOGETHER!! But wait, I agree with you in one point: don't list all the similarities between AAO and CS in the article, not because they're different, but because there ARE TOO MANY, the differences should be listed.

Rainbox Six is a very weak comparision because it's using autoaim and focuses on SinglePlayer as well.80.184.109.70 12:35, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Rainbow Six also has a very popular multiplayer portion of the game that doesn't have autoaim. Also autoaim is an option. It can be turned on or off. It depends on the difficulty or the user and because of which is irrelevant. Anything more to add? AA is not comparable to counterstrike. You just can't face the simple truth here because Counterstrike is all you know. K1Bond007 17:13, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Haven't I posted enough similarites??????????????? Just because they're not TOTALLY the same doesn't mean that they're not comparable. When there are so many similarities it is not only comparable but also SIMILAR. Make a list of more similarities between AAO and Rainbow looking at what I posted. Only name those that CS does NOT have and then those of the list that CS has but Rainbow Six doesn't. If you manage that and point out you're right then you have an argument but otherwise, stop getting stuck on those issues. Learn to accept that AAO is very to CS. 20:07, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)~

Don't pretend to be THAT blind. That's just too obvious, you know? If you can -READ- better than me, then you'll have noticed these comparisons already at the beginning of the talk age. Or why don't you just read the article of CS and compared the gameplays? Well, anyway it's obvious that you're just TRYING TO DISTRACT from the rest. How pathetic!

Propaganda: We're talking about the dictionary meaning, not that the word often carries negative connontations. Just because prpaganda has got a bad reputation, doesn't mean propaganda isn't propaganda anymore.

And I would agree, however, the word does have a negative connotation and you can't hold a blind eye to that. Even in the wikipedia article it states this. I was for a previous edit by Andre that claimed it was propaganda, but also mentioned the game not having a lot of the negative connotations associated with the word today. K1Bond007 23:39, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

'Nazi' also contains a "negative connotation" - is that a reason to erase it from history?

If the definition of the words fits the case it should be allowed even if it's no positive aspect. Is a dog no dog because in some languages "Dog" has negative connontation??? It is DEFINITely a dog! If you replace the word "propaganda" to 80.184.109.70 12:35, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh shutup dude. WTF. Nazi ONLY has a negative definition. I can't believe I even bother with you. This is honestly the dumbest thing I've ever read. K1Bond007 17:13, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Consider the word "retard." If you're someone with mental disabilities, you don't want to be called a "retard." It's not a nice word. It has a negative connotation. Propaganda is a step further, in that its negative connotation has come to be the only viable connotation in most contexts. Andre (talk) 17:17, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

"Oh shutup dude. WTF." (You needn't start insulting Bond, I'm sure OBJECTIVE admins wouldn't like that.) Actually that was just an example to say that a lot of words have a "negative connotation" but to name another word that fits less only because of the reputation is just POV (I know you like that word). I forgot that the word has two meanings, the historical (abr. of Nationalsozialist) and the pure insult so I admit it was a bad example and history books don't include that word for this reason because they're neutral. So what do they call propaganda? Advertisement? No, they call it propaganda, just and only propaganda. As you know, this "negative" and "positive" are subjective opinions => POV. Only the definition of the word is deciding. Propaganda OFTEN has a negative connontation, because most people don't like it. If you replace it with "advertisement", which only fits for non-political stuff, only shows your POV making the article subjective. Advertisement does NOT INCLUDE POLITICAL CONTEXTS. Advertisement is not a synonym for propaganda. To Andre: retard's definition is SLANG and OFFENSIVE. You wouldn't find it in any book using formal or neutral tone. It does not have a negative CONNOTATION, the meaning of the word is always negative and only used to express a negative view whereas the CONNOTATION of propaganda is not necessarily negative but only another POV. I mean, the connotation can both be considered negative by some and positive by others - this connotation is NOT DEFINABLE and therefore not defined so it musn't be considered. America's Army IS propaganda, even the source where most of Wikipedias' Propaganda-definition comes from states that propaganda has often a negative connontation AND defines America's Army as propaganda.20:07, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)~

Sorry, you're wrong. First of all, advertising is often used for political contexts. TV ads for politicians are ads, not propaganda - people don't call them propaganda chiefly due to the negative connotation we're discussing here! Secondly, the word retard comes from the Latin retardare, meaning "to delay." Historically in English it has been used to refer to anyone who is delayed in development, mentally. Thus the term "mentally retarded," or more colloquially "retard," has a denotation that refers to people with mental disabilities, and a connotation that is extremely negative. By the way, "oh shutup dude. WTF." isn't a personal attack, and I am an administrator. Andre (talk) 20:49, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

TV ads for politicians is called ELECTION PROPAGANDA. This is the correct word. Those parties would never call it propaganda because propaganda sounds worse than the word "advertisement", although it doesn't fit. That's their POV, they're biased. People went on with calling it "TV advertisement" because everyting on TV which tried to convince them to do something was usually advertisement (since it was mainly aimed at promoting goods and services). Now, if you call something Election propaganda, most wouldn't understand... And (if they know what propaganda is), because they're used to the word "advertisement", they'd call it biased because the only reason they'd see why the word "propaganda" was chosen, would be because "propagaganda" is often considered negative and hence POV. But it's no use just to call propaganda, "advertisement". "Propaganda" is and will ever be the correct word for "propaganda", mainly the promotion of political contexts. The definition of the word "retard" carries SLANG and OFFENSIVE. The definition of the word "propaganda" does not. "Advertisement" is NO synonym for "propaganda."

Whatever. You're so innocent. Btw, I like how you changed the image on the page by overwriting it. Very sneaky. You couldn't get the support here because it was a legal and a perfectly ok screenshot to use, so you just went behind the block on the page and changed it. We could have used that image elsewhere on the page, but obviously if it's not your way, it's not the correct way. Am I right? I'm done arguing about this and editing the article. You're not into actually having any sort of civil discussion about anything if people disagree with you. No matter how many times your edits have been reverted, argued, pointed out as being POV/subjective, and even infringing on other copyrighted works, you haven't changed your way. You continue to change it to suit YOUR beliefs and feelings on the article even when you're possibly wrong. In retrospect what I said was wrong and probably shouldn't have been said, however, I also have no regrets. K1Bond007 21:32, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I like that image too: maybe it's not a screenshot (the other wasn't either. I pointed THAT out to you as well) but it's the cover of the game and one of the wiki examples had that as a gamepicture too. Why I didn't announce it? I've got the impression you've stopped keeping your mind open lately and started to have a reactionary POV. What do you mean by "if it's not my way, it's not the correct way"?? Was it me or someone else who locked the page to promote his own version? And what did I do? I compounded what I considered the best parts of the two versions to have a better article and responded to every discussion point. Yes, of course, you're sick of argueing because to be successful on this page, you'd need arguments instead of some pathetic admin rights. You accuse me of not behaving civil?? I consider "shut up" and insult and not civil in a discussion. Did I insult you?? People can disagree with me and I'll still keep my mind open and search for improvements. You pointed out that my edits, MY!!, were subjective??? I thought I'd made clear they were not but obviously talking is not your favorite... Now you're referring to the picture again... Like I said I don't care a damn if it's copyright or not. The actual reason why I changed it was because it is no screenshot at all. It was just a modified picture from the official site to advertise for the game, not a normal screenshot you'd see everywhere. It is for this reason why I replaced it with the second method of depicting something of the game: front cover. It took a long time to find it by the way and it doesn't suit my beliefs or feelings at all by the way. I didn't usher my opinion, just facts to balance the article with you counteracting and with you trying to usher basically wrong words (advertisement) that could create a better reputation for the game.

It was a screenshot. How is it not. It was taken IN-GAME. Granted it doesn't have a HUD, but thats not a requirement to be a screenshot. And you can call what I said anything you want, I don't care. You calling my arguements blind and pathetic makes you all the more hypocritical. K1Bond007 22:38, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

How do you know for sure?? It's just "Taiga 3/4" from the main page of the game. It's not a usual screenshot. This picture is to create a good impression of the game and not to show a common scene of it. I think the cover fits better into an infobox (the example in the wikiproject also used the cover and not a picture from the publishers. If I'd posted a real screenshot you'd have called it POV anyway; I think that's the most objective one - although it's to promote the game as well) I don't think there is the need for a discussion because of that. There are much heavier issues to be discussed. You should be glad I don't insist on a screenshot of a common scene of the game which might be considered to have "negative connotations".145.254.137.153 00:13, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think that the game cover is a better image for the infobox, but the other screenshot should not have been overwritten. That's not how things are done. I don't have a vested interest in making this game look good, but calling it propaganda without explaining that this is a point of view is not NPOV. Do I, personally, believe that the game is propaganda? Yes, I do - does this surprise you? Is this my POV? Yes. Is this an absolute truth? No, so it must be expressed in an NPOV fashion.Andre (talk) 22:45, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

My responses are placed between allegations, below.

Sorry, but I had to overwrite it to see how it would look like because your friend blocked the site from changes. If you miss the screenshot, it's saved in the history and can be very easily found on the official homepage of that game. Propaganda is NO POINT OF VIEW. Why should it be????? It's not more POV than "advertisement", "Life", "being" or "gun". Just like all the other words, it's bound to a definition. I've already mentioned: -the fact that such newspapers as The Guardian describe aao as propaganda

In editorials, which are POV

 which doesn't mean that facts aren't facts or that propaganda isn POV. It is not. Editorials just include an opinion.

-the fact that the only two university articles about AAo I found described aao as being propaganda

Well naturally you're not going to find university articles about it NOT being propaganda. The propaganda allegation is all that makes AA interesting to university article writers.

Yes, but the question if AA is propaganda has always been responded to with YES. Question (aao propaganda?) and answer (yes). If you find one saying NO, tell me. -the fact that the game creates an incomlete and unbalaned picture

All you've alleged so far regarding this is that there isn't any blood and players can't be terrorists. Neither of these are unusual - the government wanted to avoid an M rating, and the stated point of the game is to portray a fight "for freedom," not against it. How effective would the game be as a recruitment device if it had players play as the terrorists? Freedom and speculations?? Are you tryining to distract again? It's controversial if it's "for freedom" or not. Just don't mention it. You mentioned the government... where does propaganda often come from? "Not incomplete or not balanced??? So where are all the civilians, where are the mines, traps, suicide bombers, guerilla fighters, anything????? And what's your argument?? Because people already know you bleed in war?? Thanks for the argument, because that just proves that the picture is not complete, that only other knowledge makes it complete. Where's the POV? Oh I see, just an accusation to scare. " And that's just some examples. You can find more from the "false picture the game creates" at the beginiing of this talk page. Since I haven't played the game for a long time and still remember all these things... maybe you could add some more.

-the fact that CNN claims the army "readily admits it's a propaganda device"

And yet, in this CNN column, there's not a reference or a quote of any kind, and this CNN editorial is the only source alleging that the Army admits it is a propaganda device. Lacking any other information to the contrary, I must assume that the CNN writer is lying or mistaken. Fact is that CNN writers almost never lie, otherwise they'd ruin their own and their channels reputation. It's extremely unlikely that he's lying and you know that. That CNN says it "readily admit it's a propaganda device" is an authority argument.

-links to recruitng centers Goarmy.com (on the main page and when you want to rent a server)

Because it's a recruitment device. Recruitment, too, has a political context.

-the fact that propaganda is usually used in political context

Not any more so than advertising. "Buy Coke" and "Vote for Bush" are two advertisements, neither are propaganda.

Well except for "vote for Bush" because of its political context although it doesn't contain anything incomplete or unbalanced. Where's YOUR argument that "vote for Bush is advertisement instead of propaganda? Only that you're more used to the word? That's the only (weak) argument you have and can have. It is and remains a fact that propaganda is usually used in political context. America's Army HAS political context! -the fact that advertisement is usually used at the promotion of goods or services

See previous. Does "see previous" oppose the fact that "advertisement is usually used at the promotion of goods or services"? No, it does not. Fact is fact. Advertisement is no propaganda.

-the fact that there's mainly political background of AAO (1 the image of the US Army, 2 image of their wars, 3image of its enemies(4terrorists), "The use of the terms terrorism and terrorist is politically weighted, as these terms (and historically, other terms like them) are often used in propaganda to drum up support in opposition to the designated "terrorists."5 recruitment, 6USarmy=army game=instrument of american politics, 7USarmy=army game=repressive state apparatus, 8recruitment=standing army=of high political importance,9USarmy=army game=implicitly represents the values of its society and its government, 10 from Congress, 11 not only recruitment (which can also be called advertisement) is important but worldwide publication because of the army's image, etc.)

"See previous." See? You can't oppose it at all. AAo has mainly political context as you can see.

-the fact that history books are neutral and are supposed not to include POV

History is written by the winners. Additionally, I often find that American history books are biased on such events like the annexation of Hawaii or the Vietnam War. Then I wonder why both German and English history books are calling propaganda propaganda. If think your history book is biased, find another one. History books mention facts and sources, they don't comment on anything. That's also why a lot of pages are found boring by some. In German, propaganda has negative connontations too (no wonder, propaganda hadn't achieved much positive in germany before) and in German the (non-existing) word (translated) "election advertisement" is mostly used for "election propaganda" but still the word is included in social science books of today for stuff of today. For example parties do propaganda to the public, parties do propaganda to parliament, governement does propaganda to the public, economy does advertisement to the public. Oh i see! They're ALL BIASED!! Boo boo...

-the fact that all the history books speak of what is defined by propaganda as ... propaganda

I fail to see how this is relevant to America's Army, which is not history. You claimed propaganda is POV or just an insult. Obviously it is not. History books KEEP TO THE DEFINITION OF THE WORD, not to words that have a similar meaning without often negative connontations. If history books would call propaganda advertisement, they'd be biased because they'd try to replace the correct word by a wrong word to create a better impression.

-the fact that dictionaries are neutral and usually reliable

Dictionaries chiefly feature denotation, not connotation.

So a dog is a cat? I mean because dogs sometimes carry negative connontations and cats are similar to dogs. -the fact that dictionaries claim propaganda is no synonym for advertisement or vice versa

No one is alleging such.

Correct but misunderstood. The fact thats it's no synonym proves that advertisement CANNOT REPLACE propaganda. -the fact that dictionaries don't describe Propaganda as matter of tast or anything

What's tast? I mean they don't describe it as capriciously defined. well not improtant anyway

-the fact that the main article (NPOV; protected) of the definition of the word "propaganda" from where wikipedia has most of the information of the word "propaganda" from describes aao as such

As says this article, Though not everyone agrees that this game is propaganda, it's certainly a recruitment advertisement.

Lol, no, you just manipulated that NPOV article. Besides it's irrelevant that not everybody agrees. Not everybody agrees that the world is a globe but still it is. Not everybody agrees that there was a landing on the moon (<--I mean it) but that doesn't oppose the fact at all and just like not everybody agrees it's propaganda, not everybody agrees it's recruitment adversary. The game contains mainly propaganda but also recruitment adversary. I told you the political context of the game proving it. -the fact that I haven't found any source on the net opposing the view of aao not being propaganda or rather advertisement or that there's controversy if it's advertisement or propagaganda or anything

"How about the players of the game?" Oh wait a second, I'll ask some 6-year-old idiot who got shot and accuses the whole world of cheating. The players of the game are as immature as in CS (CS should have older people because it's not Teen rated). They could claim it is not propaganda, but, of course, they wouldn't have an argument (nor a clue). The sectopm "What is supposed to be changed" contains that "a lot of players don't think it is [propaganda] and prefer the word "recruitment advertisement"" so I included the fact that not everyone considers it propaganda.

-the fact that you haven't come up with more than just the allegation it is POV and the fact that the word "propaganda" often carries negative connontations

What else do I need to come up with? You could have come up with an article claiming AAO is not propaganda... if you find one. You can't deny the definition of the word propaganda and you can't deny the political background of aao. I don't think you could come up with more anyway, because there's no fact contradicting to what I posted. Don't play stubborn and add the truth. I TOLD YOU!

... No, don't you now come up saying "the guardian is no authority for me" or anything. How many times are we going trough this again and again? Are you maybe trying to distract into smaller and smaller points only postpone the time when it is corrected in the main article? Please focus and make way for the improvements (at the bottom of this page) for the main article. Or are you just trying to avoid anything apart from your version?

ANDRE, I knew you'd come up trying to start little distractions to smaller and smaller issues to get more time and mislead. Your version of the article is CRAP and contains your POV because you replaced the correct word "propaganda" with the wrong word "advertisement" to create a better image of the game. You know you're wrong and you don't want to accept it.

Andre, while we're at it...

I really can't deal with this much longer. The whole point of consensus building is compromise. I've compromised already by mentioning the propaganda allegation in the article, where I feel it has no place. You haven't compromised - you merely spout the same allegations again and again in your stilted, non-native speaker English. Please understand that it doesn't matter who you convince of your view - it's not an absolute truth, and will not be written as such in the article no matter what, unless the Army admits that AA is propaganda. Andre (talk) 00:41, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Compromised??? What was the last version I wrote? A compromise! Who ignored it immediately and had the page blocked?? You (or your friends, I don't care). Why did you do that? To avoid a compromise and try to advertise including your POV. You've tried all the time to advertise for the game and leave out negative aspects. That's not an advertisement page, it's supposed to be an OBJECTIVE article. You just locked the page because you're incapable of not having your opinion included. You tried to have it unbalanced and to mislead. A fact is not allegation but a fact. An allegation may be a fact but it may be false as well. I didn't include my POV, but you did by replacing correct words by wrong words, by mentioning the good sides but "forgetting" the negative ones. The fact that you want the army to admit is just as ridiculous as not accepting that the earth is a globe until god did or as ridiculous as describing a dog, a cat because dogs don't admit they're dogs. The difinition of propaganda applies to the game and that's all that counts. But if my bad English bothers you, feel free to correct it. Now concentrate on that below please instead of trying to distract and go through the same again and again.

still to change

It's more propaganda than recruiting adversary because of the political context. The fact that not everyone agrees that it is advertisement is clear. Some people don't even accept that the world is a globe... no honestly! Besides, I've met players that not even agree it is recruiting adversary. Some claim it is a training tool, some even think they did it all for free... one even claimed it wasn't meant for the public. Another one even claimed it's no first-person-shooter...

{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{ But what does the army claim? "Q: Is this a recruiting tool? A: … it provides young adults and their influencers with virtual insights about the Army…"

Too hard to say "yes" or "no"? The army can't even admit it's a recruiting tool, how pathetic. But what about the fact that the army rewards the killing of opponents and calls it indirectly honorable? "Q: Does the game encourage players to kill other game players? A: Violence merely for the sake of violence is not part of the Army and therefore is not rewarded within the game." (OH YES?????? Score? Honor? Class selection? ) Q: How have you designed the game so that violence is discouraged? A: …if they fail to operate as a member of a team that is operating towards achievement of a U.S. Army objective, then they will not advance in the game. (what about the violence IN REGARD TO THE OPFOR?!? How can you win on Hospital on ambush? By kissing the VIP to death???)

This is all incredibly stupid. It's a GAME. If you've ever played the game you would know that someone can go into the game kill 20 people and still end up with something close to zero points if they failed to stay alive or do any of the goals. Goals and Leadership account for more points than your kills do. Thus the above statement is true. K1Bond007 17:38, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, you're right... if he FAILS TO SHOOT THE VIP for example... it encourages violence, but, as you said, it discourages death. Leadership and goal are also connected to the killing of enemies. No team could ever achieve anything without shooting the enemies, no team. Only through the aid of weapons a VIP can pass safely, only through the aid of weapons a CP or the valves can be unprotected, only through violence a team can be successful.

Q: How many of the missions require force? A: Less than 40% of the missions in the game depict simulated combat… (Oh more than 60% of the game is training? Did I miss something?)

Whoa whoa whoa Mr. Unbalance.. how about quoting the rest of that answer: "Less than 15% of the missions in the game depict training with weapons, roughly one-fifth depict training in units with our laser-tag systems, and one-fourth depict training in which there are no weapons. Team based combat missions are approximately only 40% of the game." The laser-tag system, MILES, is considered training equipment, which is why those missions are considered "training". K1Bond007 17:38, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

nice playing with figures!!! It's a good choice to pick "missions" to play with.

If they create a hundred of training maps which only consist of one room (that would be called "mission" as well) which teleports to another, they could even have much better numbers to conceil the truth. Unfortunately they don't say how much time the players spend on "missions" that use weapons and unfortunately those maps with MILES (also counted to the "missions") don't have servers or empty servers and thus are unplayable but exist though. But it's nice how they're trying to confuse and those nice fractions that use roundings while no numbers are given how they were calculated - who would spend time to find out?? Let's get back to reality, it's a matter of fact that a player spends most time on "missions" that require shooting and you know that. I know it's impossible to prove that but I think there's no need to prove it anyway.

[...]We have made a game that stresses values and does not condone bad behavior. (that's true... only if the killing of OPFOR isn't considered bad behavior) }}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}

"While it fundamentally fits the definition of a playable and subliminal slice of propaganda, a lot of players don't think it is and prefer the word "recruitment advertisement" instead and emphasize it is more realistic than most other first-person shooters."needs to be added because it's 1 the truth and 2 the most important counter-argument for the game. The most important arguments in favor of the game are also there: unreal engine, for free, popular. If you don't add that there, it seems biased and unbalanced.

"It also adopts a great deal from the most widely played online FPS for the past few years, Counter-Strike, a Half-Life modification. " needs to be taken because 'adapt' is the wrong word and "the most widely played online FPS for the past few years" is a fact that characterises CS better than that it is a Half-Life modification. If you don't know CS, you (usually) don't know Half-Life either. Half-Life was a revolution in the history of games and CS revoluted online gaming. There's still about 12 times as many CS1.6 players than there are aao players.

"However, it is not about the promotion of a commercial product but mainly about political themes and therefore suggests the word "propaganda"." needs to be said because it's the truth. It doesn't say you can't say "advertisement" for it but because of the political aspects it just cannot be denied that it is more related to the word (<-- I didn't even include that).

If you don't include "The killing of human beings and the outcome of the mission corresponds lastingly to score points and "Honor". However, it draws a sharp distinction between the U.S. Army (including allied Indigenous forces), and opposing forces. The killing of Americans or their allies has an extremely negative effect on your score and "Honor", consequently calling it totally dishonorable. The killing of opponents, by contrast - no matter if they were trying to kill you or if they are unnarmed - increases your score and "Honor", consequently calling the action honorable in general. The accomplishment of the U.S. Army's aims, instead of their opponents aims, affects your score favorably and therefore your "Honor" as well, indirectly calling the objectives of the U.S. Army honorable and the objectives of its opponents dishonorable at the same time. The score and, as a result, "Honor" is saved in the players' accounts." but only that friendly fire is punished, you only includ ONE SIDE OUT OF TWO. Think of the word "complete" and "balanced". Also, the effect is lastingly and describes the killing as honorable, indirectly but it does. It may be controversial if they did that on purpose but that it does is clear. It mentioned that there's lasting punishement for FF and lasting rewards for killing opponents... and that's just how it is like.

"it is also slower than Counter-Strike's". Compare these two speeds and you'll also agree on that.