Jump to content

Talk:America's Army

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AA for 360

[edit]

http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/795/795776p1.html America's Army: True Soldiers developed by Red Storm. Gas.mask.man 03:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"owned by the US government"

[edit]

Is this statement accurate? I thought everything produced by the US Gov. was in the PD? --Laugh! 07:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps 'overseen' is a better replacement? If said quote is incorrect, of course. ScarianTalk 14:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The statement is accurate. The U.S. government provides all budget pertaining to the game. Even more, it is created by a branch of the DOD, the U.S. Army, and by extension a branch of the Federal Government. 72.49.194.69 14:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC) Joshua[reply]
So does that mean it's PD or not? 96.230.4.110 (talk) 06:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reference for this? I don't think the government can own IP... Nicklink483 (talk) 16:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. Army does own the game and all game IP. The government can originate trademark protection and patents. The government can also require that vendors copyright products created for the government and transfer copyrights to the government —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.161.121.31 (talk) 18:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Medic, sniper

[edit]

1. "medics are not depicted in game" 2. "SDM (squad-designated marksman, not to be confused with a sniper which is currently not present in AA)"

What`s with that? Sniper as well as medics are in the game! Virenque 14:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I apologize for showing as anon, I'm having login issues. Anyway, while I haven't played the game in a while, I do know there is a difference between SDM and Sniper, as well as a difference between Combat Lifesaver and Medic. 68.56.80.154 21:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well. The word 'Medic' is a general term used by civilians to describe combat first aid'ers. In real life, the true medics carries much more equipments with them (stretchers, etc) with the capability of doing much much more things with a wounded soldier. In America's Army, the depicted 'Medic', do not have those equipment, and they only do what is supposed to do to prevent further implications from the wound. Also, the true snipers works totally different from those in game. How they works? Watch Discovery, or NatGeo. In AA, those guys are PART OF the fireteam, and presence is to pin down hard targets with accurate fire, which is different from the primary objective of setting up sniper teams (to work behind enemy lines silently). Additionally, they do not have the ghillie suit which real sniper have.ADouBTor 12:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other branches

[edit]

According to howstuffworks, ""America's Army" has birthed a franchise. The U.S. Marines, Air Force and Navy are all rolling out their own training simulation video games as a result of the game's success. And other militaries, including those of Palestine and Hezbollah, have also developed their own versions of the game.". Can anyone verify because this would be relevant to the article. --Philip Laurence 04:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The navy game is abysmal. I haven't found the airforce game yet, if there is one. -OOPSIE- (talk) 21:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:AA InterviewE3.jpg

[edit]

Image:AA InterviewE3.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:AA InterviewE3.jpg

[edit]

Image:AA InterviewE3.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protest

[edit]

This may be relevant to add to the article: [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by AP Shinobi (talk • contribs) 22:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Made some changes, hope you like

[edit]

GBGangsta (talk) 15:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC) Have made some changes with new information. hope you guys like.[reply]

Version history table

[edit]

Should the info in this table be condensed dramatically? It seems to not follow the MOS guidelines for video game articles (see WP:GAMETRIVIA, point #9). DP76764 18:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An image on this page may be deleted

[edit]

This is an automated message regarding an image used on this page. The image File:America's Army1.jpg, found on America's Army, has been nominated for deletion because it does not meet Wikipedia image policy. Please see the image description page for more details. If this message was sent in error (that is, the image is not up for deletion, or was left on the wrong talk page), please contact this bot's operator. STBotI (talk) 02:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AA on Steam

[edit]

I think there should be at least a small mention that America's Army 3.0 is being released on Steam. We can also put the release date down for 3.0 as today (June 17th 2009), as it's available to download and play on Steam. MightyJordan (talk) 20:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Find a decent source, of course. DP76764 (Talk) 21:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is the Steam store page fine? --Theredstarswl (talk) 05:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy?

[edit]

The majority of the criticisms leveled toward this game have no source to support them. They should be removed until they are documented facts, not original opinions / research. --22samurai (talk) 16:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand the stronger word 'Criticism' might be a more appropriate name for this section and expanding it considerably might be something to look into, as it doesn't take a genius to realise that this product in no way whatsoever represents what it is like to serve in 'America's Army' or any other armed forces for that matter.
The down side of this game (that its producers obviously didn't think about when choosing its title) is that it will have a tendency to make people in the rest of the world think the US military as a bit of a laughing stock; 'ha-ha typical couch potato Americans: they think of warfare as a video game' or on a more negative side 'OMG is this the kind of mentality they are trying to foster?'. As 'Galloway' (hidden in the article) puts it: AA 'does not make even the least attempt to achieve narrative realism—that is, accurately representing what serving a tour in the Army would actually be like. Instead, it simply expresses a nationalistic sentiment under the guise of realism, being little more than a "naïve and unmediated or reflective conception of aesthetic construction." '
I'll see if I can dig up some 'worthy' sources to criticise AA some more.1812ahill (talk) 00:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AA3 needs its own page

[edit]

It's a sequel, not a new version. Smurfy 22:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope - its a new version...and all new versions are sequels unless the make V1 then V3 then V2 ?!?!?
The previous versions used UT2.5, the new one UT3 Chaosdruid (talk) 16:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's definately a new game; it wasn't developed from AA2 -- merely heavily influenced by it. It's a completely new game. [[User:Fightin' Phillie|]] (talk) 02:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. It still 'America's Army'. being in V3 doesn't make turn it into another game. They aren't marketing as such too. CrB (talk) 13:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It uses another engine from the other ones, It's a different game71.175.191.135 (talk) 15:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're saying that red alert 1-3 not belong to the same series because they all uses different engines? The developers should just stick to Unreal 2 for the entire future to make it the same game? Explain abit please. One more thing. The title says America's Army which quite covers the entire series from it's launch to AA3 or even to AA4. If we were to be talking about setting up a NEW page for AA3, yes, do it. Do it for AA2 too. CrB (talk) 17:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not only does it use a different Game Engine but the developers completely redid the game mechanics. The overall game play is similar but that's like saying Unreal 2k4 is similar to Unreal Tournament 3. —Preceding unsigned comment added by T3po7re5 (talk • contribs) 03:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


AA3 and AA2 definately need to be split. They have entirely different gameplay, training, engines, accounts. This page could list basic info on it, release dates, news of sequels, etc, but right now you're trying to fit 3 different games into one article because they "Have the same name". That's the same as trying to combine all of the Grand Theft Auto articles into one page. It wouldn't be too much work to split off AA3 and AA2 for their own article. –  TigerTails  talk  11:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should this be mentioned

[edit]

Should it be mentioned that in a game both teams play as the U.S. army but see each other as enemies of the U.S. and holding the opposites of U.S. weapons when the other player in reality is holding the same weapon that you are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.53.90.148 (talk) 05:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yes it should ! lol - just edit the gameplay section and add that in m8 - if you need help doing that let me know :¬)
Chaosdruid (talk) 17:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Updating info

[edit]

Hi all

I am going to edit the page and bring it more uptodate as well as correct some info and try and get references...

I agree that it might be best to split the article now as there are the three separate games, "AA2"(PC), "AA3"(PC) and "Rise of a soldier" (Xbox). As "Rise of a soldier" is a franchise and was only co-developed by the USArmy I think that should be separate but with AA2 and AA3 being run alongside each other and with the problem that many people will play both versions until the problems are fixed and the only co-op maps are in version 2 not version 3. This combined with the "only time will tell" factor to see if AA2 continues or falls off and ceases to be used leads me to strongly disagree with splitting them apart as yet. Maybe in the future months we will have to.

For now I will carry on and edit with that possible split in mind...

cheers Chaosdruid (talk) 13:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

K - done a lot of work on the article..major issues with bias and some issues with ppl's opinions rather than facts but looks fine for now...Chaosdruid (talk) 16:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

[edit]

Assessed as C; reception section needs to be referenced and written in prose, and certain contents throughout the article lack referencing, "academic references" need to be delistified and integrated into prose, and in general the article has too many one to three-sentence paragraphs. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 09:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dissapointing differencies between AA2 and AA3

[edit]

Not much/any is mentioned about all the good training missions available in AA2, but not in AA3. Going from AA2 to AA3 might be very dissapointing for some. 83.255.81.118 (talk) 15:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Find a source discussing it and it can be added. DP76764 (Talk) 16:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The reference link provided at the end of the article to "Army Magazine" is a broken link. 96.18.39.97 (talk) 02:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strange edits from 59.99.xxx.xxx

[edit]

See [2]and [3]. The pattern is big deletions from an anonymous user with no other edits, no edit comments, in the 59.99.xxx.xxx address range, which is a block in Nagpur, India. Possible vandal. --John Nagle (talk) 07:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please ad FN: Glorious Mission

[edit]
A section with a brief mention of this is already there.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 12:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Is aa3 legal in the uk, please mention this — Preceding unsigned comment added by WOLfan112 (talk • contribs) 10:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC) What do you mean legal? Are people from the United Kingdom allowed to play it?Craig 23:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cookiecraig (talk • contribs) [reply]

Psychology. Aptitude testing. Data mining. Finding unflappable killers.

[edit]

Gary Webb's feature story on AA has some good info, e.g.

"An experimental psychologist from the Navy helped tweak the game’s sound effects to produce heightened blood pressure, body temperature and heart rate." and
"America’s Army isn’t merely a game, recruiting device or a public-relations tool, though it is certainly all of those things. It’s also a military aptitude tester. And it was designed that way from the start." and
"In a posting deep inside the official America’s Army Web site, the Army reveals that “players who request information (about the Army) … may have their gaming records matched to their real-world identities for the purpose of facilitating career placement within the Army. Data collected within the game, such as which roles and missions players spent the most time playing could be used to highlight Army career fields that map into these interest areas … ”" and
"Some psychologists and parents worry that such games are desensitizing a large, impressionable segment of the population to violence and teaching them the wrong things. But that depends on your point of view. If, like the U.S. Army, you need people who can become unflappable killers, there’s no better way of finding them."

--Elvey (talk) 09:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on America's Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on America's Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:57, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on America's Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:11, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on America's Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:36, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on America's Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AA2 was a figment of my imagination?

[edit]

What? America's Army 2 did not exist? I never played it? It was a figment of ,my imagination? What?

Can anyone explain why there is no mention of AA2? Chaosdruid (talk) 22:31, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

About the importance

[edit]

Actually, it is underrated by the WikiProject Video games, since although it has been rated as Low-importance, it has been awarded and studied, and generated controversies. RekishiEJ (talk) 14:28, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:America%27s_Army&oldid=1204792858"