Jump to content

Talk:America's Army/Archive 1

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


Face the truth and add an article about the propaganda in the game, which is probably the most important reason for the critism against the game and the game faced a lot of critism - which goes unmentioned here. All these superflous weapon and bullets should have a less priority than the propaganda since it's the propaganda why they're there: the game promises to be realistic so it can change the view of people on matters like of real life, like the army of the real life.

"Video Game Propaganda"

http://www-ugs.csusb.edu/honors/02/ResTravis.htm (from a Californian university) (a brilliant article, you should read through it completely)

"Your tax dollars at play U.S. Army gets into the gaming business. You're paying for it." http://money.cnn.com/2002/05/31/commentary/game_over/column_gaming/

(from CNN) (eg.: "[...]From a propaganda perspective, though, the Army has seemingly hit the jackpot. (And the Army readily admits the games are a propaganda device.[...]To deflect criticism, the Army development team has toned down the violence, earning a "T" rating by the Entertainment Software Ratings Board. (A "T" is on par with a "PG" rating for a movie. Games carrying that rating are meant for players ages 13 and older and may contain violent content, mild or strong language, and/or suggestive themes.) Kills in "Operations" are depicted with a puff of red, followed by the enemy falling to the ground. There are no pools of blood or dismemberment, both of which the game engine is more than capable of rendering.[...])

"Recruitment hard drive The US army is the world's biggest games developer, pumping billions into new software. Steve O'Hagan reports on the battle for young thumbs and minds" http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguide/features/story/0,,1242262,00.html

(from The Guardian, a famous British newspaper) "[...]Released in 2002, America's Army (www.americasarmy.com ) was given out at recruitment stations (which frequent US school playgrounds, like predatory ice cream vans) and put on the internet for free download. Essentially a playable piece of PC propaganda, America's Army saw 1.5m downloads in its first six months - the most successful game launch in history.[...]The US army is the biggest games developer at work today. It's channelling around $1.1bn a year of US taxpayers' money to a war chest for software development via its simulations arm (www.peostri.army.mil) and spent $50m setting up its very own LA-based dream factory, the Institute Of Creative Technologies, the Hollywood-linked high-tech research centre behind the Kubrickesquely named Full Spectrum Warrior.[...]These games may be ultra-realistic down to the calibre of the weapons, but when bullets hit flesh, people just crumple serenely in a heap. They're like Tom Clancy novels made into episodes of the A-Team. No blood. No exit wounds. No screams.[...]These two games are not the end of it.[...]US army has a shortfall in recruits, and it knows only young people are dumb enough to sign up - the average age of a US soldier is just 20[...]"

'America's Army' Targets Youth http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020902&s=hodes20020823 (from the newspaper "The Nation")

"[...]But there is a difference between realistic detail and actual reality, and as a depiction of Army life America's Army is, to say the least, misleading.[...]Players learn, in this army, that war is fun.[...]The "Go Army" button in "Operations" will generate thousands of clicks this year. The game is a good investment. Recruiting each individual soldier typically costs the army $15,000. If 400 new soldiers sign up via this web link, then America's Army will have paid for itself."

Army targets youth with video game http://www.notinourname.net/resources_links/video-game-7nov03.htm

"[...]I don't think people playing these games make a strong correlation between the game and real-world conflict, where real people are doing real important things in real places," says Rob Smith, editor of PC Gamer magazine and a history buff who loves tactical shooters.[...]" (don't forget that those from Gaming magazines know a lot about gaming culture) "[...]One payoff is showing up at the military academy at West Point, he added, where 19 percent of this year's freshman class said they had played " America's Army: Operations".[...]"


If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it.

Stop reviving the inbox. It doesn't even provide correct information because it wasn't the US Army who developed the game. It was the MOVES institute who did that provided by instruction by the US army. I even posted the official website of the developers which you deleted thoughtlessly. Also "multiplayer" is incorrect too because you can't play the game online without having played the Single player mode which means training. If you don't like the addition "propaganda" (which is worth mentioning since it's the only fact that made the game famous or rather infamous) and the cause for that game in the inbox, just write another article in the main text instead of deleting it. Besides, round-based team deathmatch IS the game mode of the game. Also I mentioned the correct number of players having played the game at the same time online having checked and compared the accurate details from www.aaotracker.com which saves the stats. The highest number ever had was 4859 which was their record and achieved on 31st May, 2004. When the authentication server is down (should be mentioned in the main article because it forces the user to be tracked) the number of players on the servers is zero. It's worth mentioning because only this number gives accurate information about the number of players. If you don't mention Counter-strike but Rainbow six, you must have misunderstood something because there are only little similarities of Americans army with Rainbow, unlike with CS. Similarities with CS(amongst others): 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 you have to shout a comment when you throw an explosive grenade with other teammembers alive (Fire in the hole!/Frag out!), 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, 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, in which you you're on foot, in which there are civilians which you can kill, in which you get punished for killing civilians, in which one team wins when the time is up and in which you hear a spoken comment when won or lost a round, ETC..

Furthermore the number of accounts is inaccurate. Check the main page of America's Army and you'll see 4.2 millions. It's also crucial to say that the number of accounts has nothing to do with the number of players. And as you can see even the newspapers mistook that for the number of players, as the articles for this game show. I also added the " " to make clear it's a name which is necessary. And you can't say " is hard at work trying to catch the cheaters off-guard with mass bannings". 1.it's your own opinion. you don't know if they're really working that hard 2.they don't use mass bannings to catch the cheaters off-guard. They write a script which banishs those who've certain other data than the usualy america's army player has on his hard disk. So I wrote: "tries to find and banish cheaters" which is at least the truth and also a "Neutral point of view". Also hardware bans are just said to cause the victim to replace hardware so he can play again. I know someone who's had a hardware ban but it went away after a month or so, which makes me think it's only for a certain time.

Also it's worth mentioning the advetisement for the game by the US army. Here's the link for the source of two E3 trailers: http://aaotracker.4players.de/thread.php?threadid=7109 There's were also presentations of the game at E3s, one of which even with a military helicopter flying above the public, then landing and letting out some soldiers which pretended to be in a battlefield. To prove how misleading the game can be I noted some aspects. Wrong image of the army you may draw from this game (+ = wrong aspect that gives you an approving view of the army, - = aspect that gives you a disapproving view of the army):

- you're likely to die within (less than) 10minutes in missions (rounds last up to 10minutes, when the rounds ends usually more than 70% of all players are dead) (- bugs in the army (I've never ever played a game that had so many bugs) ) - much hate and insults between team members - training is ineffective (it doesn't really help you solve the missions) (- many cheaters (aimbot, wallhack, devmode, etc.)

+army is full of adventures (you play on various terrains, from desert till snow, the training is short, you'll mainly face missions) +you can do whatever you want in the team (you're not bound to squad formation, you can camp while your team dies alone) +the army would mainly concentrate on you (in the game you seem to be the centre of the universe, you get your own nice sergeant, your own special forces team introducing you to their jobs, they pretend as if you were the only soldier important in the fort) +battles are clear (enemies are easy to distinguish from your troop and from civilians, both your troops and the enemy start at a certain spawn that never changes, you can calculate where and when your enemies come or are present, clear briefing, help of ghosting) +no surprises possible(there are no randomly-created events, no suicide bombers, no mines, you can learn the maps by heart) +civilians act predicatably(there are only few maps with civilians, civilians don't move, they can't be terrorists in disguise) +you only fight terrorists (evilly-looking, armed, attentin-grabbing black males shouting uglily in a different language, fighting you and your like) +you are among the good guys (your objects are honorable, you fight against the destruction of a pipeline, against the aims of our evil terrorists, you escort a vip (counter-strike-copied idea), you destroy the evil) +you're equal to the tests in the army(the tests in the training can be accomplished by 6-year-olds, and even if you're so dumb and fail, you can do it again and again till you pass, mostly there's not even time limit, and if there is, it is totally exaggeratetly high eg. that you can accomplish a test where you're supposed to run through an obstacle course by normally walking) +everybody is nice to you (your personal sergeant greets you with "Good morning, soldier, and welcome to the M16A2 training course...", in the classroom they say "how's it going to you", every dumbest task you accomplish is awarded by "outstanding, soldier", "Hooah!", "good job!" or "great job!". +the runs in the army are easy to solve (no sweat, no gasp, no loss of pace when running for a long time, easy-to-solve time limit) +there are no real punishments for failure (you never have to polish any toilet, they tolerate failure in tests, they never yell at you, there's no military drill, there are no insults against you, they pretend to be your best friends) +the US soldiers all look great (like in advertisement on TV, in contrast to the terrorists, they only show handsome persons, even a woman explaining you the medical training, except for a small majority in the training, you only see white skins around (in the real army you'd face a great proportion of black soldiers, as mostly people from the lower class join the army and blacks mainly belong to it) +the training period is compared to the mission very short (after once accomplishing the little and few training missions, you can spent the rest on action missions, where are the endless pushups?) +the military has a high reputation (they published descriptions on the power and the glory of their forts, of course, skipping over every negative detail) +many people would play the game (they only showed the number of accounts rather the actual number of players on the server which could only reveal the popularity, even the articles I published fell for that, the actual number of players is, despite much advertisement for the game, merely about 1/12 of the number of players playing Counter-strike 1.6 online, which means very low) +there'd be no propaganda in the game (according to the official website and army officials +it would be the only game in which you don't have to kill to accomplish an objective (according to the official website, reality: what about the game they copied that from, called Counterstrike, which wasn't censored because of this very fact?) +everybody is honest and open to you (they flood you with unimportant and for the game irrelevant information on weapons, forts, tanks and jets (you know the kids are crazy about these things) till your mentality is like saying "shut up already, okay, I believe you") +you have to kill (despite the theory which allows to accomplish the objectives rather than kill, it is practically totally unrealistic to do without, neither you nor the terrorist have the possibility to give up) +terrorism could be fought with weapons (reality: it cannot, think tanks even report that the war in Iraq increased terrorism, making a negative contribution to the other war: the war on terror, violence can never be fought with violence) +the moral and enthusiasm of the US army is indestructable (you never see despair in their faces, you always here confidence in their shoutings, emerging even Battlefield as more realistic) +battlefields are clean and proper (some corpses vanish, there's no blood on the walls, there are no death screams or any other screams of pain, or any other kind of gore, emerging even Counter-strike as more realistic) +there's only training or battlefield (reality: there are no real battlefields anymore (compare that to Vietnam or Iraq) +there are no rules how to treat your enemy (no violation of the Geneva Convention punished) +in wars, there's fairness (there's no guerilla, there's no mines, there's traps, there's no bombs, there's no enemy in disguise, no kidnappings, no suicide bombers) +special forces are totally educated (in the game they speak 4languages perfectly, are experts in ten extensive and interesting military ranges, are the best soldiers in the world and all wan to tell you what they can like you were more important) +you are the most important member in the army (you arrive as the last soldier to the lectures, you have your own sergeant, everything focuses on you, even our nice special forces are happy that you care about them) +there is no military drill in the army (not included, everybody is nice, happy about their lives and happy to meet you, where's the harassment in the military??) +death isn't that horrible (neither gore nor screams and you are even allowed to chat and spectate other players till the round is over, after the round is over, you live again) +playing that game or joining the army would be honorable (a number in front of your name that the longer you play the game the more it increases is called "Honor" ** indicating the addiction for the game, reality: addiction isn't honorable but weak) +you can't get deaf forever (after an explosion happened close to you, you'll hear again in some seconds) +you can quit whenever you want to(you can quit the game whenever you want to) +after joining the army, you could be whatever you want to be (rifleman, squadleader, fireteamleader, sniper, special force,...) +after joining the army, you'd be more worth than anyone else (you get a nice but pointless little icon next to your name indicating that you're in the army) +there'd be democracy in the army (you even can initiate a vote to kick your squadleader if you want) +you could insult anyone you want (reality: try insulting your little bossy drill sergeant for example) +you know as much about the terrain as your enemy (reality: since the US army usually attacks in other countries, the other soldiers usually know more about the terrain) ETC. (I'm sure you could find many more)

The game can only mislead by contending to be realistic and this is what it does: For example:"Where do you think Americas Army will go in the future? TechnoloG: Our goal is to continue implementing America's Army to push the limits of current gaming technology while staying true to representing the U.S. Army. We are constantly trying balance our design goals between realism and fun. ... read more in the thread" REPRESENTING THE US ARMY

Also replace this picture of america's army. It is an official which gives the question if it's under copyright and it's no real screenshot because there are no screen elements (like HUD, or "Spectating"). The screenshot itself might even be described as propaganda because it doesn't give a balanced picture of the game. The fact that you see sunrises is what appears in many military sites as well. The sunrise creates a certain atmosphere of untouchedness, innocence and new. If you want a balanced picture add your own. It should be of the map that is played most (sf_hospital I guess), it should depict the weapon most people see (Rifleman), it should be at a playerspawn because that's the place that is most seen. You should be alive then and you should see other soldiers. You should see the average number of players, you usually see. That would present reality the most.

I won't write anything on propaganda but translate additional parts of the German version of wikipedia's America's Army article. The Counter-Strike article is one of the articles that we are told by wikipedia to base our other game articles on. Counter-Strike is even the game's closesed realative so the screenshot showed there is what this article's one should look like. It shows the map played most of the times (de_dust). It depicts the weapon that is bought most (desert eagle) and the player is close to the player spawn. Being disputable if the aao picture (which is not even a real screenshot) is protected under copyright or "PD-USGOV" is another reason why I think it should be replaced by a real one. Nightbeast Nov 29

Rainbow six doesn't mean anything here. You can compare AAO with a lot of other games only depending in what way. You can compare it with graphics,weapons, votekick, gameplay, sound, maps, objectives, to other games.... anything. So why compare it to Rainbow Six? Why pick one of those things capriciously? You could just as well say: Since it has the same engine, it is pretty much like Unreal Tournament. But it's irrelevant as well. It's most in common with CS and that's all that is to say. Well, anyway I'll leave it at comparison with rainbow six.

Realism is what makes this game a tactical shooter. Counterstrike is usually not refered to as a tactical shooter. Only when the game is played online and actual tactics come into play is it refered to this. See the article and play Rainbow Six then come back and tell me that AA is more like Counterstrike than it is Rainbow Six. K1Bond007 00:40, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

I've played it over a year and stopped with 60 Honor. So I think I know something about the Culture which is just the same as in Counter-strike (which I played for two years). The only reason why it was removed was because it doesn't only show aao in a positive light, too bad. Bad it's crucial to mention BOTH positive aspects AND NEGATIVE. PROPAGANDA IS NOT SUBJECTIVE!! It is a definition. It is "a specific type of message presentation, aimed at serving an agenda. Even if the message conveys true information, it may be partisan and fail to paint a complete and balanced picture." America's Army's main agenda is to increase recruiting, create a positive image of the army and also to create a positive image of the US politics itself (political proganda. For example the US soldier in the game ALWAYS fight for a good cause. They always fight against terrorists and are supported by the natives. They fight against terrorism and their supposedly evil aims. They don't fight against furious civilians or little children with weapons) The advertisement for the US Army resembles usual TV advertisement. Gorgeous people are in the US army. Ugly people are on the other side, (in versions up to 1.7 it was more extreme: ugly aggressive-looking skinheads for example). And as you belong to the gorgeous guys as a player, everyone is nice to you to pretend your life is much better there. In the history pages of the game, there are no scandals, suicides, crimes or anything else negative mentioned. The army is glorified in every aspect. And to make sure the player believes this is how the real army is, the contend that it "represents the real army" and try to combine irrelevant details from reality to the game. They flood the player with hundreds of details of weapons, military bases, US army units etc. till the player gives up being critical and starts believe it's the truth. The entire purpose of the training levels is to do just that. The training itself is totally ineffective for the player with regard to performance for the rest of the game (it doesn't even teach how to run. I had to ask another player online to get to know that). But the game would never mention the low money a soldier earns (and it is low, half of what the British army earns or so I've heard) or anything negative against the army. If I still haven't convinced you, look at wrong picture it creates (the misleading aspects of the game mentioned above. And if that can't convince you, think about this: why did the game cause worldwide indignation and ethical debates if it's not because propaganda entered computer games? why is there an objective article by an university writing about America's Army as video game propaganda? why did it remain after checking for further basis for people? why has never been mentioned in any professional source that there's controversy if it's propaganda or not? why does CNN even say the army "readily admits it's propaganda"? why doesn't even the army deny it is propaganda? (I searched extensively for what the army has to say to this allegation of propaganda: nothing) why do many sources speak of it as "the world's best propaganda game and the best recruitment scheme since the Nazi threat in World War II"?

and if you still don't believe it is propaganda: why do you delude yourself or do you just pretend you don't believe it because you don't want this fact mentioned in the article because it could include the negative side of the game and be objective? But I begin to understand why you want this "screenshot" (which is not a screenshot) included: it looks good and could advertise for this game, although it is different from how the screenshots should look like. I mean real screenshots. The CS article is how we're supposed to do it.Nightbeast 16:22, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC) I've just found another source which could be used in this article as well. http://artcontext.org/crit/essays/noQuarter/ Nightbeast 17:37, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That's funny, really. You say it's advertisement but deny it's propaganda! Read through Wikipedia's article on propaganda and look at the examples. By the way, America's Army is an example there too. Funny, huh? And by the way, it DOES have a message "Join me!" or for those from abroad: "Have sympathy for me!". And to the editorial things: what about the research paper? Do you know what an university is? Is that article POV? Do you know what .edu means? If America's Army is not defined by the word propaganda, nothing is. And read through what I posted. No, I can't give you any statement by the army... HoW?!! Is Macdonalds advertisement no advertisement because they didnt say it is? And if the CNN guy says "the army readily admits", prove it's a lie. BTW why should the army publicly say it's propaganda? So that everybody knows? Nightbeast 23:23, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No sorry, that's just a wikipedian change. The actual article which is NPOV doesn't include the last line. You don't say "recruiting advertising". Propaganda means the same as in German or the Oxfor dictionary along with others just lie..Nightbeast 22:29, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thirdly, the university article calls America's Army propaganda, and I disagree. It's that simple! Also, universities don't have NPOV policies, and neither do history books or dictionaries. They could very well be POV, and I think this university article must be.

They don't publish POV article on "research paper", but if you can disprove that, go ahead. I just hope you don't only write I disagree in your English essays, do you? Nightbeast 22:14, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As for CNN, I see where you SAY CNN said that the army admits it is propaganda, but I can't find a SOURCE. Your words aren't a source - I require independent verification. Andre (talk) 21:56, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

search again for it and click on the link two lines above written by Morris, "Morris is director of content development for CNN/Money."Nightbeast 22:29, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

oh indirectly aao manipulates the fact too, you should read my "misleading statesment".

no, to disprove you donm't need two people, you need an argument. The statement "it's POV" must be based on arguments, saying two people think it is, means nothing. an editorial doesn't mean it's a lie. it means there's an own opinion. and if he claims the army "readily admits" it's propaganda, then I've got a goddamn authority argument while you have nothing. "Because of its portrayal of the U.S. Army and its political aims". What are you trying to say??? The main NPOV artice about propganda where wikipedia got almost everything from defines America's Army as propagandaNightbeast 22:52, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, of course it doesn't create a complete and balanced picture. You can go through all the points above (not everyone opinionless, and you'll see that it doesn't create a balanced picture. To do that, it would also be necessary how the "enemy" considers his and the army's objectives. And several points more. Is it a feeling that the Geneva Convention is neglected ALTHOUGH THE DEVELOPERS CLAIM THAT "players are bound by the laws of land warfare"? Is it a feeling that there are only very few civilians included? Is it a feeling that there are no randomly-created events, no suicide bombers, no mines? Is it a feeling that everybody says nice things to you? Is it a feeling that there's no harassment in the army? Strangely a documentary on tv claims there is in the US army.

I don't lie. Speaking of painting a balanced picture, wheres the information on MILES? It's funny how the word "balance" is getting tossed around, but the majority that is posted is negative and one of the biggest parts of the game is missing. K1Bond007 23:58, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

what the hell is MILES?? anyway post something of that if it's really so important. hmm. are you talking of that training thing laser part to beep enemies down? Oh I see. Yes, that's worth mentioning too even though only few players play these maps (I liked that map in which you're in a cornfield though).

Understand this: a feeling is something subjective and is often not true. A fact is something necessarily true. If you devaluate facts as feelings, it's POV.