Talk:America's Army/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

article debate

Ele, I want you to discuss the points here through, and EVERY point you made! They're all so poor, biased and unnecessary.149.225.40.78 20:27, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Iv said my piece, we agree on some and disagree on others- I think thats fine. Just edit the information you want back in into the article and we'll go from there. I can't give input if I don't know what exactly it is you want in the article, when you keep reverting to some old version. ELE9699

You've both been blocked for 12 hours for violating the WP:3RR. Please don't violate it again. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:05, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

If you actually think you had more information talking to an account, you're wrong there, especially because accounts (like Ele) can lie easily while an IP address can never - you can know where I'm from, what's my telephone number, what's my provider... But if it's getting on all your nerves, I'll do you the favour of course.

I didn't threaten to revert it all if there's something I don't agree with, but if there's nothing you can agree because it's all so biased, irrelevant, false, dishonest, poorly written and intended to deceive, every aspect of that type will be reverted, which means, in Ele's case, almost everything. Also, I find it hypocritical that while Ele, you, ignored everything already discussed extensively on this talk page, you want me not to ignore yours. Who do you think you are?? Anyway.

I'll try to be more helping and start discussing every aspect you created because as you're almost everywhere wrong, you won't stand much of a chance in my opinion. That will be much, I know, but if you thought about what you want to change first, there wouldn't be anything objectionable. If you want everything or nothing, it's usually not everything you get.

1) you removed "in order to raise the US Army recruiting numbers and public relations" despite total relevance. It IS the intention, it has been DISCUSSED and AGREED on and it's the INTENTION of the whole AA-project, in other words: it is the answer to the WHY-question for the entire game. Deleting this piece of information means trying to DECEIVE.Nightbeast 14:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I said MANY times to FEEL FREEE to EDIT this BACK in, except NOT by REVERTING the entire article.Ele9699

I won't. I'll only revert what I doesn't fit. The result is similar though.62.134.105.101 22:19, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

2)You added a link to the MOVES Institute. Did they do more than AA??? I fail to see why it should ever have a link then. Not every human being and organisation needs a link. That would be irrelevant. Note that every site costs money and while you think it might be relevant, some even doubt if video games should have an article.Nightbeast 14:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Moves institue does many things, also the wikipedia has many links to articles of thing that only ever were did one thing.Ele9699

Video games come and go. Some would even doubt if they should have their own article and you want to create an entire article for a nameless army team that made only one title??? Sorry, but I fail to see any relevance. If they had done several games, that would be a different case. It's even almost superflous to mention their name.62.134.105.101 22:19, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

3)You added "The game, while well recieved by gaming community, has suffered some criticism's on its implications." How well it was received it YOUR opinion. I think differently. Especially famous clans found the game is not appropriate for clan wars. Hmm, it's hard to find a source to make that clear. But the famous clan Ocrana, for example, thought so [1]. It's extremely famous in the gaming scene. With "Visitors online: 703" you might believe me, I think.Nightbeast 14:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I was summarizing gaming reviews and YOUR comments. There have been many articles that happily greeted a free game among gaming, and there have been some controversy to over the goverment making a video game (even if it has done it before).Ele9699

Then you can say that the reaction was diverse, which is clear. Some like it, others don't. As always. Why mention that at all??? No relevance.62.134.105.101 22:19, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

4)You deleted "America's Army is primarily a playable and subliminal piece of video game propaganda and virtual recruiting tool, whose success led to further versions of the game and other games of that type being developed, such as Under Ash (Palestinians), Full Spectrum Warrior (US Army), Close Combat: First to Fight (US Marines) and USAF: Air Dominance (US Airforce) but, unlike America's Army, these games are not free of charge." although it has been discussed THOROUGHLY already on this page, especially why it's propaganda. Deleting it would prove your dogmatism and will to distort the truth.Nightbeast 14:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I did NOT delete, it I moved that statement to the correct section. This is a article about the game, not the controversy that surrounds it.Ele9699

The game IS the message. It's not a game, it's an experiment. It's controversy is more important than it's details that only AA-gamers could interest. Who gives a shit about which weapons are exactly included??? No one. Not even AA-gamers. It doesn't even contribute to the big picture at all. Before you remove anything from controversy, remove Weapons, Gameplay, Accounts, Cheating, Version first. If you want an article on every irrelevant, superflous detail, you might create your own. The article should explain the situation as a whole, the big picture.62.134.105.101 22:19, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

5)You deleted "but not modern war" although the "Realism" section proves its correctness. Well, you changed "Realism" too to distort the truth, so check our 'out-dated' version if you want to know.Nightbeast 14:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If you don't understand that they are using 'realism' as pertains to a game, and not like 'movie' realism then you must spend more time playing games. Saying something in general is 'realisitc' is very different from saying a game is 'realistic'. People though doom was realistic when it came out-- its a matter of realism relative to other games. AA IS more realistic then other game's realeased during that time.Ele9699

I told you: realism has no unit, it cannot be judged if it's not 100% realistic. It is not PERIOD. Realistic means close to reality, nothing else - no matter if you're talking about films or games. I've played enough games. Thank you. AA is all but realistic.62.134.105.101 22:19, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

6)You replaced the above sentence with "and one of the bese simulators availbe to date for close infantry combat.", which is not only poorly written (read through what you change ruthlessly next time and you might do less mistakes); it is also YOUR opinion. "Best simulators" is YOUR Personal Own View, POV. It was even discussed on the talk page if you can call the game "simulator" or video game. Contribute to the discussion next time please.Nightbeast 14:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Its not my opintion, its general knoweldge and has been repeted in form many times in gaming article. Plust I didn't say it WAS the best, I merely said it was AMONG the best. Very different statement- which has to be true since most there were only a handfull of realism tactical shooters even released during that period.Ele9699

Yeah sure, general knowledge! I told you: only objective sentences. No POV. There's nothing else to say about that.62.134.105.101 22:19, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

7) You added a link to "Michael Zyda". I can only say: same case as 2)Nightbeast 14:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree same case as 2Ele9699

How about we create a book about every human being on earth, no matter how irrelevant they are? It's an encyclopedia! A link leads to one of his biographies. That should be more than enough. After all: who would care???62.134.105.101 22:19, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

8)You added "Over 4.5 million have registered", which is a LIE as explained before. You're trying to deceive again.Nightbeast 14:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

FIrst of all thats not all I said, and second, several million HAVE registered. That means they downloaded and created account, it doesnt mean they played. Of them, a certain fraction completed basic training and other missions- which I all stated. Your just taking things out of context when you split it up like this.Ele9699

NO! Several million ACCOUNTS! How many accounts could ONE user have? Millions! How long does it take to create an account? Just create a programm and it creates hundreds in hours. The number of accounts is irrelevant and only intended to deceive. I'm taking nothing out of context. "Over 4.5 million have registered" is a false statement, and if you have read through what was there first, you lied.62.134.105.101 22:19, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

9)You added "a fraction of them have in turn completed basic training.", which does not have any relevance at all and even tries to mislead because it implies only a fraction had managed to complete the training. It is based on the false thought that the number of accounts corresponds to the number of players. The number of accounts can even be left out as it is has little relevance, is based on the information by the developers which have often proved to be false (check the discussion page. It's described 2 or 3 times).Nightbeast 14:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes this is critical part, a fraction of the millions that have registered completed basic trainng and other missions- these peopel have played the game. period. If you finished basic training then you were a player.Ele9699

NO! MAYBE this number of accounts has been pushed through training, but not players! The number of accounts that have done training is TOTALLY irrelevant, even the number of players that have gone trough training would be irrelevant. Also, the numbers could only based on the developer's will to tell the truth, in other words: you're believing them blindly and accept it as truth. No relevance, no reliability, no inclusion. That's it.62.134.105.101 22:19, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

10)You added "Roughly a couple million down to just hundreds of thousands complete the various training missions availble.", which is, like 9), irrelevant and is based on the conceiving thought that the number of accounts corresponds to the number of players. It even implies the training is hard and most would fail. LOL. Nice distortion of the truth.Nightbeast 14:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is imporant to understanding the several million figure. Of the each of the training missions, a certain number of completed them. This ranges from just thousands to over million depending on which one.Ele9699

NO! This only an irrelevant piece of information that misleads. That piece of information explains NOTHING. Also, it depends on the reliabilty of the developers.62.134.105.101 22:19, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

11)You deleted "The developers claim and especially stress that the number of player accounts is over 4.5 million and they wilfully labeled it the number of 'Total Registered Players'. However, the number of accounts does not correspond to the number of players at all, and misleads many people making them wrongly think the game had millions of players.", although that piece of information would be enough not to fall for 8), 9) and 10). The relevance is high because almost every source I found was deceived and also it expresses the game's popularity. If someone knows the highest number of players ever played together in Counter-Strike, add it to allow comparison of the two games. I know the popularity of "kingdom of the winds" (1 000 000), Everquest (500 000), Ultima Online (200 000) but not even CS and since CS and AA are so similar, it should only be included that popularity.Nightbeast 14:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

THat is exactly what it is, there have been millions of registered players. This doesn't mean that they have to KEEP playing and be online every second.Ele9699

NO!! That's the number of ACCOUNTS!!! Not the number of players!!! Account is NOT a player. Maybe even the number of accounts is made up. Who knows? The number is there to mislead. And looking at you, it was also successful.62.134.105.101 22:19, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

12)You added "Succesive improvements to the game have staved of the player base declining to much.", which is a mere speculation. Also, "improvements" is only YOUR opinion. In my opinion the game's best version was 1.9 and from then on it only became worse.Nightbeast 14:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ummm there have been many releases, this is a fact. If you don't like the word improvemnts, change it! I dont care about tiny wordings like that in this case.

Even if you change the word, it REMAINS a SPECULATION, nothing relevant, nothing neutral.62.134.105.101 22:19, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

13)You moved a paragraph in "history"-section, which makes no sense because it kills the chronological order of it. Are you just trying to ruin the article or what???Nightbeast 14:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I dunno are you? I think maybe you are!.Ele9699

ON TOPIC: kills the chronogical order! As explained. OFF-TOPIC: Oh you're joking. This justifies your edits!62.134.105.101 22:19, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

14)You deleted "Meanwhile, the developing studios work on version 2.3 Q-Course and 2.4 Overmatch, which should include modern combat tanks.". The sentence wasn't up to date, but that's no excuse to replace it with the mere speculation "Meanwhile, the developing studios are working on future versions, which are likely to have more combat vehicles and roles to perform within the game."Nightbeast 14:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

15)You deleted "America's Army is a figurative and written type of message presentation, aimed at serving US recruitment, but especially at giving a positive impression of the US Army in general.", although this has been discussed EXTREMELY THOROUGHLY on this talk page. You've ignored that in your goddamn stubbornness and will to distort the truth and vandalize.Nightbeast 14:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I DIDN't delete it, in fact its stil in that section on THIS page, and the whole controversy was only moved..Ele9699

No, you deleted "aimed at serving US recruitment" although this has been extensively discussed.62.134.105.101 22:19, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

16)You added the ludicrous speculation and weaselspeech "that could potentially serve US Army recruitment". The sentence replaced "aimed at serving US recruitment", which was the true intention and completely discussed.Nightbeast 14:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ok thats trivial sentense wording, that can be written either way. Feel free to modify this, except not through doing a total Page reversion.Ele9699

I'll reconstruct the sentence.62.134.105.101 22:19, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

17)You added "Whether that impressions is positive or negative depends on the user", which can be only be commented with "superfluous!". For the nothing-saying sentence you sacrificed information that have been discussed and agreed on. Who the hell do you think you are?!?Nightbeast 14:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes that is true, people can find it either way.Ele9699

Yes, and human beings can walk. Fine. Who cares? No relevance.62.134.105.101 22:19, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

18)You added "as the game has what are generally regarded as rather boring and tedious traing sessions and many people do not find killing and being killed in a game to be fun.", which is not even your opinion anymore but only intended to mislead. But if you want to write on exclusion in the game, you might like this source (it has been ignored so far): [2] Nightbeast 14:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Again, feel free to improve this point. I don't actually care about many of these minor edts, but I do care when you revert the entire page.Ele9699

I don't see a way to improve it. It doesn't fit at all.62.134.105.101 22:19, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

19)You created another site called America's Army controversy. The page is superflous because the material is already in this article and if you want another page, move "Gameplay" there. "Gameplay" is less relevant and only there for gamers. You only created the site to play down America's Army controversy, to play down the relevant truth, the big picture.Nightbeast 14:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I stated my reasons- the page was TO large over the size limit. The most off-topic section that does not deal with the game, is the controversy over it. Lets see I could choose between the gameplay or histroy sections, are a bunch of info about debates about it. Im sorry, whats actually in the game is more imporant for a page FOR the game.Ele9699

So the controversy, the response to the game, the educated part, is more irrelevant than ANY goddamn weapon name???? The game's article wouldn't almost be totally irrelevant without controversy. This is an article about the project AA, not diary about small issues that not even their games would care about. When compared to Controversy and History, the rest of the article is almost irrelevant.62.134.105.101 22:19, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

20)You deleted "so-called". This matter has already been discussed on the talk page and found appropriate.Nightbeast 14:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I didn't delete IT, take it up with them.Ele9699

21)You moved "The game is a medium-paced yet tactical shooter, in a similar vein as the "Tom Clancy's" series of shooters. Pacing is fast, in the sense that players can be killed in one to a few shots, although gameplay is a lot slower and contains less action than Unreal Tournament and Counter-Strike". It kills the order in my opinion and I see no reason why it should be moved.Nightbeast 14:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Again I didnt right all those words. For the ones I did, just the seconds bit, it is a valid comparison.Ele9699

I've nothing really against the sentence, but it just doesn't fit where it was moved in my view and I wonder why it was moved.62.134.105.101 22:19, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

22)You added sub headings in the gameplay section. I rather disapprove, because on the one hand they make the section more readable, but on the other hand you don't need a heading for 2 sentences and it puts stress on this pretty irrelevant section. The headlines don't even fit.Nightbeast 14:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

THey fit well, and improve organization.Ele9699

You don't need a heading for every third line! Or if you needed one, the other sections should have their own as well. Other articles don't do this either, so I fail to see why there should be any. It seems to me to be an attempt to stress something shouldn't be according to its relevance. That's one aspect of bias.62.134.105.101 22:19, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

23)You added "For example, if a soldier drops his weapon when a OPFOR soldier see's it, it picks it up it will funcion as a OPFOR weapon rather then how it appeared to the person who dropped it." whose relevance is next to nothing. If you want to write a diary on the game, you might want to create your own article.Nightbeast 14:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to improve it, thats what this sentance is about. Except NOT by reverting the entire page.Ele9699

Considering other articles about the game, the wiki article has focused more than any other on the transformation already. That's why I consider the sentence as superflous.62.134.105.101 22:19, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

24)You made "realism" a sub category of "Gameplay" although realism is far more important and is closely related to "Controversy". Analysying the realism means analysying the game as a statement.Nightbeast 14:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is a article about a game- in gaming the realism of game is a property of the game.Ele9699

That's not an article about the gameplay, but about a successful recruitment experiment. This is not wikigamer, but wikipedia. Gameplay is rather irrelevant when compared to the message of the game itself.62.134.105.101 22:19, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

25)You fixed the link to XIII. Good job. That's the first change I approve of.Nightbeast 14:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

We actually agree on many thing, if you cared to stop being a reversiost and so contradictory..Ele9699

Well, that's why I married you.62.134.105.101 22:19, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

26)You added "The game is critized by most non-gamers has still being unrealistic", which is a statement you made up and is false.Nightbeast 14:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OK thats out of context, and was in realtion to other things mentioned there. Once again there is a difference between a 'realsitic game' and a 'game that is realisitc'. AA is a realistic game, which only means that it is MORe realsitic then arcade games, and does NOT mean its actually like reality. This is because games are nothing even LIKE reality.Ele9699

No, for me realism in video games means 'based on reality' or 'pragmatic'. Since realism has no measurements, America's Army cannot objectively be described more realistic than any game that has one or more features (e.g. blood) which are closer to reality than America's Army. Except for the flaws concerning a game's physics, which of course cannot reach reality, a game CAN portray things in a realistic manner. But AA doesn't wilfully. Why do you have a HUD? Why aren't there more civilians? Where's the UT blood? AA deliberately portrays war unrealistically - it misrepresents war on purpose. Other games usually don't pretend to be realistic. They don't lie.62.134.105.101 22:19, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

27)You added "however the descrption of the AA as realisitic in the gameing world does not mean that its is perfect representation of reality, but rather simply more realistic then other game's.", which is based on your simple ignorance. I've explained why you can't judge game according to their realism, because realism has NO UNIT. If the game has no blood and other games have, you might describe any other game with blood as more realistic, just like you can describe AA as more realistic than games that feature science-fiction weapons. You ignored the discussion. You're ignorant but you're also arrogant, which makes you nothing but a vandal.Nightbeast 14:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes this epitomized you lack of understanding of game. Same point as above. Once again there is a difference between a 'realsitic game' and a 'game that is realisitc'. AA is a realistic game, which only means that it is MORe realsitic then arcade games, and does NOT mean its actually like reality. This is because games are nothing even LIKE reality.Ele9699

Yes, war is nothing like the game. Realism is nothing like the game. The game is unrealistic in what it claims to be realistic. If the developers say the game is realistic, they lie. If they say the game is realistic in comparison to other first-person-shooters, it's just their point of view, because, like I said, realism has no measurement, no unit, it's not 30°realistic. If another game has any realistic detail that AA hasn't it's your choice if you consider this game as more realistic in total or not. There's realistic and there's unrealistic. "More realistic" is POV if the game is also more unrealistic than the one compared to.62.134.105.101 22:19, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

28)You added "Limitations in the engine and gameplay and the amount time that can be spent mean that only some realistic aspects are re-created, not all.", which plays down the fact war was wilfully beautified. They might just as well have added more civilians. The concept of realism is like this: "Win us with honest trifles, to betray's in deepest consequence."-Shakespeare's MacbethNightbeast 14:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ok, again, same issue as the above two. Once again there is a difference between a 'realsitic game' and a 'game that is realisitc'. AA is a realistic game, which only means that it is MORe realsitic then arcade games, and does NOT mean its actually like reality. This is because games are nothing even LIKE reality.Ele9699

NO! That's a different issue. You're almost claiming the game CANNOT be realistic, as if they'd tried it all. It is realistic in small affairs, like guns and crap, but it is unrealistic in big affairs. E.g. collateral damagage, rules of war and depiction of when bullets hit. The game is wilfully unrealistic. Realism has no other meaning in the world of games.62.134.105.101 22:19, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

29)You added "For example the game Soldier of Fortune 2 has much more realistic bullet hit effects then AA, but does not have Iron site's for example.", which would prove that in YOUR OPIONION you consider more realistic bullet hit effect compared to iron site as negligible. "Iron site", hmmm, some user fixed that spelling mistake, but some stubborn freak who likes to wrongly accuse others of not paying attention to his contributions didn't notice it...Nightbeast 14:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes that was not you, and ocne again for realism there is a difference between a 'realsitic game' and a 'game that is realisitc'. AA is a realistic game, which only means that it is MORe realsitic then arcade games, and does NOT mean its actually like reality. This is because games are nothing even LIKE reality.Ele9699

Same issue. By the way: 'realistic game' and 'game that is realistic' mean the very same thing. It's just another grammatical way to describe. But I know what you're trying to say: realistic = more realistic than arcade games. I don't agree on that. The definition of the word "realistic" is the same when talking about computer games or movies, or else all the dictionaries lie. I agree that the word "realistic" is often misread when talking about computer games. That doesn't change the meaning of the word though.62.134.105.101 22:19, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

30)You added "The game does not show everything in war and training.", which is a ridiculous sentence. Just think about it. I know you can.Nightbeast 14:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Umm its correct. It is a FPS shooter, not a history and dictionary about us army activities and warfare and training. There are whole books and website on this. This game cannot encompass everything.Ele9699

No, what I was trying to say is that the sentence is useless. That would be like describing a book with "the book doesn't include every human being on earth" or something stupid like that. That's logical! It's no good to include such nothing-saying sentences.62.134.105.101 22:19, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

31)You added "It looks as if the training will remain short", which is nothing more than an irrelevant speculation.Nightbeast 14:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I did not say that. Take it up with them.Ele9699

"Short" is subjective. You could say "a user spends on training is relatively short in comparison to the time a user usually spends on the other missions" or something like that. The training is a bit longer than most other training so I wouldn't say "short" to it, in comparison to other games it's relatively long, you could also say. But above all, it's merely a speculation and rather irrelevant.62.134.105.101 22:19, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

32)You added ", and not take several weeks to complete as you would have to in the real bootcamp.".... so it just looks like it but in reality the users spend weeks on it but just don't know it!?!? THINK BEFORE YOU ACT(write)!Nightbeast 14:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

THINK BEFORE YOU ACT, I did not write that, take it up with them.Ele9699

Then sorry for attributing it to you, but still you tolerated it. I do not care WHO contributes but WHAT is contributed. That's why I don't care about users at all.62.134.105.101 22:19, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

33)You added "While the game aims for realism", which is a simple lie. Read 28) for exampleNightbeast 14:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

THat is there stated goal, which numerous gameing reviews and other reviews approve of. If there is a debate over this, it goes in the controversy section.Ele9699

Of course that's what they state. Think about it. If you call your product unrealistic, it cannot be mistaken for reality. Look. A game is like an idiotic message like "War is great". Now you say the game, the message, is realistic. That message then becomes a claim, a statement, about reality. The game doesn't aim for realism. It aims to give a good impression of the army. It's only realistic to keep the statement up. If you saw flying soldiers, could you think the game is just like reality?? If the game aimed for reality, the wouldn't have replaced the violence.62.134.105.101 22:19, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

34)You added "to help show what being the role of a soldier would mean", which is also a lie. You don't get to know anything about the routine as a soldier. It's just some bad counter-strike with training and an egoistic intention. They would never tell you how little you'd earn as a soldier or anything negative.Nightbeast 14:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ok cutting senstance fragments out and then critize them is meaningles, even if I did know the context. If there is a problem there feel free to EDIT it, just not by reverting the whole page.Ele9699

Actually, the meaning of the sentence doesn't change in context. The intention is not to give a fair impression of the army, it is to give a partisan one to make you think in a positive way of them. That's normal.62.134.105.101 22:19, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

35)You added "The blood you do see is little, which can still be complained about by critics." as if the army HAD TO leave out the blood. Sniff, sniff. Leaving it out depicts war as clean and proper and lets them reach more teenagers, but that's only because of all of those critics! Sniff. You can't stop trying to distort the truth, can you?Nightbeast 14:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ummmm I dunno how many games you'v played, but its nearly industry practice (save SOF series, and some others) to only do a blood spirt. If thats your complaint take it up with about nearly every other FPS to come out during that period. Everything from COD, MOHAA, RTCW, etc. etc. all only do have the blood puff effect.Ele9699

Strangely such games as Doom, Counter-Strike, Unreal Tournament and Quake and they're more than famous and popular - they're games that survive. AA would love to be such a game. So you see critisized and partly banned for including blood doesn't have a great impact on popularity, so why remove that realistic element?! You know, it depicts war as something ugly, disgusting and repulsive. Movies such as Private James Ryan are anti-war movies partly because they report from the senseless violence. Just imagine a soldier picking up his own arm he lost through some grenade! That's not really what a person wants to get to know in the army. Realism is neglected because it would be counter-productive.62.134.105.101 22:19, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

36)You added "When you see the civilians, they are cowering down, trying to cover their heads to avoid being shot or seen as hostile.", which is a total lie. The civilians do not move or react at all. They're lifeless objects and evaded except for two maps. Just like in reality,huh!?Nightbeast 14:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I didnt add that, somone else wront that take it up with them.Ele9699

Please, as always I don't care WHO contributed that. Don't tolerate bad contributions only because they're new contributions.62.134.105.101 22:19, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

37) you changed added usually to "where everything that moves is a teammate or an enemy." (...is usually a ...), which proves your will of trying to play down reality and deceive. There's nothing else that moves!!!Nightbeast 14:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I didnt add that, somone else wront that take it up with them.Ele9699

Well, I'm sorry, but if you tolerate the edits in your versions, I quickly and wrongly attribute them to you. At least that shows you agree with them and that's similar to creating them.62.134.105.101 22:19, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

38)Everything you deleted in the paragraph. Nothing should have been deleted. You were only trying to deceive again and leave out the relevant big picture of the game.Nightbeast 14:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I didnt make all those edits, somone else wront that take it up with them. Even if not, your being far to vauge for me to know.Ele9699

They require justification from whoever made them if he wants to keep them.62.134.105.101 22:19, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

39)You added "The game is seen as realistic among other FPS game out there as of Feb. 19th, 2005.", which is only your personal own view and therefore negligible.Nightbeast 14:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I didnt add that, somone else wrote that take it up with them.

Ok I see a trend here, you revert the article. Then when I must restore it, you critize me for not only my edits, but the others Iv restored. Many of these points were not even things I said, but done by other people, which I had to restore. Your constent reversions HAVE made mess for the page- nearly everyone of "your" edits was a reversion. My edits reversion were only in response to yours, reversion that were in total interference of my and other work on the page and againt wikipedia policy. Ele9699 18:41, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This was a lot of work but it's not even everything. I'm sorry but I fail to see why I should take any more space to comment on your changes that I consider ridiculous; they're all but worth it. In my opinion you're just an arrogant person that wants his personal own opinion to prevail and doesn't care about the truth or what others think. I hope I'm wrong. If you want anything changed at all, explain what and why. Much has already been discussed so I don't see a need to ruthlessly change it. I'll only include the reasonable changes you made, no matter how often you press on "save page". You won't be able to justify any other change anyway if I'm not totally wrong. Up till now the only good change was the fix of a link and something in version. I'll make sure that stays. I'm sick of advertisement lies. I hope I wasn't too impolite but your thoughtless behavior got on my nerves. Maybe I shouldn't have spent so much time commenting on your changes but if you REALLY want to discuss, you should be able to recognize the opportunity.Nightbeast 14:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

The reversions were all right - they were reconstructions of something thought out fitting wikipedia. Wikipedia is not about playing on articles, it is about creating ONE GOOD article. With Good I mean objective, relevant, reasonable and of high quality. If your edits don't fit, a reconstruction is needed, not unreasonable or destructive, but in favour of the wikipedia policy and totally in favour. For the future, please don't copy text from talk page to comment on it again, just place your message under the point it belongs to. This would make it more clear and readable. And when contributing to the article, don't tolerate material from other editors that are new but don't fit. Or else you're approving of them. I've got a lot of time so the only victim will be the talk page again ;) I wonder if someone could archieve most of it.

"The reversions were all right - they were reconstructions of something thought out fitting wikipedia." Yes my though exactly, this is fine. I think we agree on this. "or the future, please don't copy text from talk page to comment on it again, just place your message under the point it belongs to." No because Im not goinf to touch your edits, because I dont want you complaining about it nor the potential for this being changed. Ele9699 23:42, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

early response in first format format:

1) you removed "in order to raise the US Army recruiting numbers and public relations" despite total relevance. It IS the intention, it has been DISCUSSED and AGREED on and it's the INTENTION of the whole AA-project, in other words: it is the answer to the WHY-question for the entire game. Deleting this piece of information means trying to DECEIVE.Nightbeast 14:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I said MANY times to FEEL FREEE to EDIT this BACK in, except NOT by REVERTING the entire article.

2)You added a link to the MOVES Institute. Did they do more than AA??? I fail to see why it should ever have a link then. Not every human being and organisation needs a link. That would be irrelevant. Note that every site costs money and while you think it might be relevant, some even doubt if video games should have an article.Nightbeast 14:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Moves institue does many things, also the wikipedia has many links to articles of thing that only ever were did one thing.

3)You added "The game, while well recieved by gaming community, has suffered some criticism's on its implications." How well it was received it YOUR opinion. I think differently. Especially famous clans found the game is not appropriate for clan wars. Hmm, it's hard to find a source to make that clear. But the famous clan Ocrana, for example, thought so [2] (http://www.ocrana.com/). It's extremely famous in the gaming scene. With "Visitors online: 703" you might believe me, I think.Nightbeast 14:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I was summarizing gaming reviews and YOUR comments. There have been many articles that happily greeted a free game among gaming, and there have been some controversy to over the goverment making a video game (even if it has done it before)

4)You deleted "America's Army is primarily a playable and subliminal piece of video game propaganda and virtual recruiting tool, whose success led to further versions of the game and other games of that type being developed, such as Under Ash (Palestinians), Full Spectrum Warrior (US Army), Close Combat: First to Fight (US Marines) and USAF: Air Dominance (US Airforce) but, unlike America's Army, these games are not free of charge." although it has been discussed THOROUGHLY already on this page, especially why it's propaganda. Deleting it would prove your dogmatism and will to distort the truth.Nightbeast 14:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I did NOT delete, it I moved that statement to the correct section. This is a article about the game, not the controversy that surrounds it.

5)You deleted "but not modern war" although the "Realism" section proves its correctness. Well, you changed "Realism" too to distort the truth, so check our 'out-dated' version if you want to know.Nightbeast 14:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If you don't understand that they are using 'realism' as pertains to a game, and not like 'movie' realism then you must spend more time playing games. Saying something in general is 'realisitc' is very different from saying a game is 'realistic'. People though doom was realistic when it came out-- its a matter of realism relative to other games. AA IS more realistic then other game's realeased during that time.

6)You replaced the above sentence with "and one of the bese simulators availbe to date for close infantry combat.", which is not only poorly written (read through what you change ruthlessly next time and you might do less mistakes); it is also YOUR opinion. "Best simulators" is YOUR Personal Own View, POV. It was even discussed on the talk page if you can call the game "simulator" or video game. Contribute to the discussion next time please.Nightbeast 14:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Its not my opintion, its general knoweldge and has been repeted in form many times in gaming article. Plust I didn't say it WAS the best, I merely said it was AMONG the best. Very different statement- which has to be true since most there were only a handfull of realism tactical shooters even released during that period.

7) You added a link to "Michael Zyda". I can only say: same case as 2)Nightbeast 14:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree same case as 2

8)You added "Over 4.5 million have registered", which is a LIE as explained before. You're trying to deceive again.Nightbeast 14:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

FIrst of all thats not all I said, and second, several million HAVE registered. That means they downloaded and created account, it doesnt mean they played. Of them, a certain fraction completed basic training and other missions- which I all stated. Your just taking things out of context when you split it up like this.

9)You added "a fraction of them have in turn completed basic training.", which does not have any relevance at all and even tries to mislead because it implies only a fraction had managed to complete the training. It is based on the false thought that the number of accounts corresponds to the number of players. The number of accounts can even be left out as it is has little relevance, is based on the information by the developers which have often proved to be false (check the discussion page. It's described 2 or 3 times).Nightbeast 14:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes this is critical part, a fraction of the millions that have registered completed basic trainng and other missions- these peopel have played the game. period. If you finished basic training then you were a player.

10)You added "Roughly a couple million down to just hundreds of thousands complete the various training missions availble.", which is, like 9), irrelevant and is based on the conceiving thought that the number of accounts corresponds to the number of players. It even implies the training is hard and most would fail. LOL. Nice distortion of the truth.Nightbeast 14:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is imporant to understanding the several million figure. Of the each of the training missions, a certain number of completed them. This ranges from just thousands to over million depending on which one.

11)You deleted "The developers claim and especially stress that the number of player accounts is over 4.5 million and they wilfully labeled it the number of 'Total Registered Players'. However, the number of accounts does not correspond to the number of players at all, and misleads many people making them wrongly think the game had millions of players.", although that piece of information would be enough not to fall for 8), 9) and 10). The relevance is high because almost every source I found was deceived and also it expresses the game's popularity. If someone knows the highest number of players ever played together in Counter-Strike, add it to allow comparison of the two games. I know the popularity of "kingdom of the winds" (1 000 000), Everquest (500 000), Ultima Online (200 000) but not even CS and since CS and AA are so similar, it should only be included that popularity.Nightbeast 14:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

THat is exactly what it is, there have been millions of registered players. This doesn't mean that they have to KEEP playing and be online every second.

12)You added "Succesive improvements to the game have staved of the player base declining to much.", which is a mere speculation. Also, "improvements" is only YOUR opinion. In my opinion the game's best version was 1.9 and from then on it only became worse.Nightbeast 14:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ummm there have been many releases, this is a fact. If you don't like the word improvemnts, change it! I dont care about tiny wordings like that in this case.

13)You moved a paragraph in "history"-section, which makes no sense because it kills the chronological order of it. Are you just trying to ruin the article or what???Nightbeast 14:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I dunno are you? I think maybe you are!

14)You deleted "Meanwhile, the developing studios work on version 2.3 Q-Course and 2.4 Overmatch, which should include modern combat tanks.". The sentence wasn't up to date, but that's no excuse to replace it with the mere speculation "Meanwhile, the developing studios are working on future versions, which are likely to have more combat vehicles and roles to perform within the game."Nightbeast 14:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That wasn't me that was another user. Take it up with them. I merely included there edit when you reverted it.

15)You deleted "America's Army is a figurative and written type of message presentation, aimed at serving US recruitment, but especially at giving a positive impression of the US Army in general.", although this has been discussed EXTREMELY THOROUGHLY on this talk page. You've ignored that in your goddamn stubbornness and will to distort the truth and vandalize.Nightbeast 14:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I DIDN't delete it, in fact its stil in that section on THIS page, and the whole controversy was only moved.

16)You added the ludicrous speculation and weaselspeech "that could potentially serve US Army recruitment". The sentence replaced "aimed at serving US recruitment", which was the true intention and completely discussed.Nightbeast 14:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ok thats trivial sentense wording, that can be written either way. Feel free to modify this, except not through doing a total Page reversion.

17)You added "Whether that impressions is positive or negative depends on the user", which can be only be commented with "superfluous!". For the nothing-saying sentence you sacrificed information that have been discussed and agreed on. Who the hell do you think you are?!?Nightbeast 14:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes that is true, people can find it either way.

18)You added "as the game has what are generally regarded as rather boring and tedious traing sessions and many people do not find killing and being killed in a game to be fun.", which is not even your opinion anymore but only intended to mislead. But if you want to write on exclusion in the game, you might like this source (it has been ignored so far): [3] (http://www.minitrue.nl/essays/nmnc-aa/ruud.html) Nightbeast 14:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Again, feel free to improve this point. I don't actually care about many of these minor edts, but I do care when you revert the entire page.

19)You created another site called America's Army controversy. The page is superflous because the material is already in this article and if you want another page, move "Gameplay" there. "Gameplay" is less relevant and only there for gamers. You only created the site to play down America's Army controversy, to play down the relevant truth, the big picture.Nightbeast 14:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I stated my reasons- the page was TO large over the size limit. The most off-topic section that does not deal with the game, is the controversy over it. Lets see I could choose between the gameplay or histroy sections, are a bunch of info about debates about it. Im sorry, whats actually in the game is more imporant for a page FOR the game.

20)You deleted "so-called". This matter has already been discussed on the talk page and found appropriate.Nightbeast 14:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I didn't delete IT, take it up with them!

21)You moved "The game is a medium-paced yet tactical shooter, in a similar vein as the "Tom Clancy's" series of shooters. Pacing is fast, in the sense that players can be killed in one to a few shots, although gameplay is a lot slower and contains less action than Unreal Tournament and Counter-Strike". It kills the order in my opinion and I see no reason why it should be moved.Nightbeast 14:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Again I didnt right all those words. For the ones I did, just the seconds bit, it is a valid comparison.

22)You added sub headings in the gameplay section. I rather disapprove, because on the one hand they make the section more readable, but on the other hand you don't need a heading for 2 sentences and it puts stress on this pretty irrelevant section. The headlines don't even fit.Nightbeast 14:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

THey fit well, and improve organization.

23)You added "For example, if a soldier drops his weapon when a OPFOR soldier see's it, it picks it up it will funcion as a OPFOR weapon rather then how it appeared to the person who dropped it." whose relevance is next to nothing. If you want to write a diary on the game, you might want to create your own article.Nightbeast 14:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to improve it, thats what this sentance is about. Except NOT by reverting the entire page.

24)You made "realism" a sub category of "Gameplay" although realism is far more important and is closely related to "Controversy". Analysying the realism means analysying the game as a statement.Nightbeast 14:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is a article about a game- in gaming the realism of game is a property of the game.

25)You fixed the link to XIII. Good job. That's the first change I approve of.Nightbeast 14:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

We actually agree on many thing, if you cared to stop being a reversiost and so contradictory.

26)You added "The game is critized by most non-gamers has still being unrealistic", which is a statement you made up and is false.Nightbeast 14:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OK thats out of context, and was in realtion to other things mentioned there. Once again there is a difference between a 'realsitic game' and a 'game that is realisitc'. AA is a realistic game, which only means that it is MORe realsitic then arcade games, and does NOT mean its actually like reality. This is because games are nothing even LIKE reality.

27)You added "however the descrption of the AA as realisitic in the gameing world does not mean that its is perfect representation of reality, but rather simply more realistic then other game's.", which is based on your simple ignorance. I've explained why you can't judge game according to their realism, because realism has NO UNIT. If the game has no blood and other games have, you might describe any other game with blood as more realistic, just like you can describe AA as more realistic than games that feature science-fiction weapons. You ignored the discussion. You're ignorant but you're also arrogant, which makes you nothing but a vandal.Nightbeast 14:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes this epitomized you lack of understanding of game. Same point as above. Once again there is a difference between a 'realsitic game' and a 'game that is realisitc'. AA is a realistic game, which only means that it is MORe realsitic then arcade games, and does NOT mean its actually like reality. This is because games are nothing even LIKE reality.

28)You added "Limitations in the engine and gameplay and the amount time that can be spent mean that only some realistic aspects are re-created, not all.", which plays down the fact war was wilfully beautified. They might just as well have added more civilians. The concept of realism is like this: "Win us with honest trifles, to betray's in deepest consequence."-Shakespeare's MacbethNightbeast 14:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ok, again, same issue as the above two. Once again there is a difference between a 'realsitic game' and a 'game that is realisitc'. AA is a realistic game, which only means that it is MORe realsitic then arcade games, and does NOT mean its actually like reality. This is because games are nothing even LIKE reality.

29)You added "For example the game Soldier of Fortune 2 has much more realistic bullet hit effects then AA, but does not have Iron site's for example.", which would prove that in YOUR OPIONION you consider more realistic bullet hit effect compared to iron site as negligible. "Iron site", hmmm, some user fixed that spelling mistake, but some stubborn freak who likes to wrongly accuse others of not paying attention to his contributions didn't notice it...Nightbeast 14:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes that was not you, and ocne again for realism there is a difference between a 'realsitic game' and a 'game that is realisitc'. AA is a realistic game, which only means that it is MORe realsitic then arcade games, and does NOT mean its actually like reality. This is because games are nothing even LIKE reality.

30)You added "The game does not show everything in war and training.", which is a ridiculous sentence. Just think about it. I know you can.Nightbeast 14:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Umm its correct. It is a FPS shooter, not a history and dictionary about us army activities and warfare and training. There are whole books and website on this. This game cannot encompass everything.

31)You added "It looks as if the training will remain short", which is nothing more than an irrelevant speculation.Nightbeast 14:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I did not say that. Take it up with them.

32)You added ", and not take several weeks to complete as you would have to in the real bootcamp.".... so it just looks like it but in reality the users spend weeks on it but just don't know it!?!? THINK BEFORE YOU ACT(write)!Nightbeast 14:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

THINK BEFORE YOU ACT, I did not write that, take it up with them.

33)You added "While the game aims for realism", which is a simple lie. Read 28) for exampleNightbeast 14:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

THat is there stated goal, which numerous gameing reviews and other reviews approve of. If there is a debate over this, it goes in the controversy section.

34)You added "to help show what being the role of a soldier would mean", which is also a lie. You don't get to know anything about the routine as a soldier. It's just some bad counter-strike with training and an egoistic intention. They would never tell you how little you'd earn as a soldier or anything negative.Nightbeast 14:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ok cutting senstance fragments out and then critize them is meaningles, even if I did know the context. If there is a problem there feel free to EDIT it, just not by reverting the whole page.

35)You added "The blood you do see is little, which can still be complained about by critics." as if the army HAD TO leave out the blood. Sniff, sniff. Leaving it out depicts war as clean and proper and lets them reach more teenagers, but that's only because of all of those critics! Sniff. You can't stop trying to distort the truth, can you?Nightbeast 14:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ummmm I dunno how many games you'v played, but its nearly industry practice (save SOF series, and some others) to only do a blood spirt. If thats your complaint take it up with about nearly every other FPS to come out during that period. Everything from COD, MOHAA, RTCW, etc. etc. all only do have the blood puff effect.

36)You added "When you see the civilians, they are cowering down, trying to cover their heads to avoid being shot or seen as hostile.", which is a total lie. The civilians do not move or react at all. They're lifeless objects and evaded except for two maps. Just like in reality,huh!?Nightbeast 14:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I didnt add that, somone else wront that take it up with them.

37) you changed added usually to "where everything that moves is a teammate or an enemy." (...is usually a ...), which proves your will of trying to play down reality and deceive. There's nothing else that moves!!!Nightbeast 14:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I didnt add that, somone else wront that take it up with them.

38)Everything you deleted in the paragraph. Nothing should have been deleted. You were only trying to deceive again and leave out the relevant big picture of the game.Nightbeast 14:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I didnt make all those edits, somone else wront that take it up with them. Even if not, your being far to vauge for me to know.

39)You added "The game is seen as realistic among other FPS game out there as of Feb. 19th, 2005.", which is only your personal own view and therefore negligible.Nightbeast 14:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC) . . .

I didnt add that, somone else wrote that take it up with them.

Ok I see a trend here, you revert the article. Then when I must restore it, you critize me for not only my edits, but the others Iv restored. Many of these points were not even things I said, but done by other people, which I had to restore. Your constent reversions HAVE made mess for the page- nearly everyone of "your" edits was a reversion. My edits reversion were only in response to yours, reversion that were in total interference of my and other work on the page and againt wikipedia policy. Ele9699 18:41, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)