Talk:America's Army/Archive 11

message: I modified the article to use the correct terminology of enemy as opposed to OPFOR.  I left one instance, noting that OPFOR was used to designated the opposing team in training maps; the M.I.L.E.S. maps.
I disagree with this, OPFOR stands for opposing forces in this game and is a generic term for the opposing team no matter what map. Look at the opposing team's global chat sometime, it will say [OPFOR] in front of their name.
I play AA and the term enemy isn't used. It is always OPFOR.
:This is the greatest part of the game, and in my POV the most politically realistic part of it. When you play, the opposing forces always look like bad guys! Change sides, and the other side looks like... the bad guys again! Real World - Now the Iranians are the bad guys. Three years ago it was some of the Iraquis. Ten years ago it was all of them, and twenty years ago, The Iranians again! Twenty five years ago the Iranians were our good friends! Go figure. Egmason 12:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know which version you're playing, but OpFor was recently (either in 2.6 or 2.7) removed from 90% of the maps and replaced with Enemy.  As the first person in this discussion said, OpFor is now only used for the opposing team in MILES maps; Enemy is used in all other cases.  I am, however, unsure of whether the use of OpFor and Enemy is determined by the map itself or the game type that the map is running as, i.e. Live Fire or MILES.  This is an option that can be selected server-side, which is why some MOUT McKenna maps, which is meant to be a MILES simulation, can be played as Live Fire.  --Danielizzat 16:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: AA used 'Enemy' and not 'OpFor' for the purpose of MILES maps and live fire maps difference. in reality, opfor is the proper term to identify opposing forces. ADouBTor 12:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  OPFOR vs. Enemy 

message: Is this correct?
: It should be "America's Army has been developed since 2000 and still changes through add-ons and patches" since development is ongoing. I would prefer something like "Development began in 2000 and continues through the release of numerous/regular add-ons and patches". But that's just me. Slinky Puppet 13:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar 

message: "shortly after computer-based wargames were permitted on government computers for U.S. Marines" 
Does this mean some computers were set aside for marine training or that marines could install games on their computers?
 "The Department of Defense raised its spending for recruitment to more than US$2.2Bn" 
Compared to what? Is that a 10% increase or 0.001%? 
 "After the game proved successful, the project was withdrawn from the Naval Postgraduate School due to allegations of mismanagement in March 2004" 
Is it relevant that the game had proven successfull at the time the project was withdrawn? Was the project withdrawn in March 1994 or was that when the allegations were made (not always the same)? Slinky Puppet 14:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Questions

message: The links to other games at the bottom frames AA in a very negative light, by placing it alongside white supremacist games.  It then shows 'peacemaker' games, with the implication that they are better?  What do these games have to do with AA at all?  This needs to be changed. 172.188.138.112 14:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've gone through and remove a link to an article that had false information about the game system requirements, the language filter and other blatently wrong content. I've also gone through and added a few citations and changed the caption on one of the pictures. While I agree that it is a bit of a strech to toss AAO in with white supremacist games, both are intended for recruitment. It may be distasteful to leave the other references in there, but perhaps not completely unfounded. If there is anything else that needs work just let me know and I'll try and correct the errors.--Saintlink 08:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Serious Bias

message: The mac and linux version have been discontinued, article modified to show that.
Why did they discontinue the mac and linux versions (I would assume due to low popularity; i.e. not worth it any more)?63.152.13.173 11:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Linux and Mac discontinued

message: A poll by I for I Research said that 30 percent of young people who had a positive view of the military said that they had developed that view by playing the game.
A google search for "I for I research" finds this text repeated word for word on several websites, none of which cite a source (even SourceWatch). Does I for I Research actually exist?
An exact search on Google shows this article as one of about five sites mentioning it. It most obviously does not exist. Removing until someone can prove it does. 207.67.145.204 00:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I for I research 

message: Hey I have an idea let's always use things like "U.S." (instead of, you know, United States) in the very beginning of an article...because we want to give the reader as little information as possible and abbreviations are the perfect way of accomplishing this. Love to all, Paul 04:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abbreviations and whatnot 

message: The external links section needs to be cleaned up. Wikipedia:External links states that an article should have a few links to an external source, not fifty. Any articles used for information should be cited, not added to EL. There are far too many articles linked here and the number needs to be cut down significantly. 207.67.145.194 22:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: warspawn.com is one of several inter-related domains that were spammed often enough Wikipedia to get blacklisted. --A. B. (talk) 01:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: *"The Army Game Project" article for the Army Magazine by Chris Chambers (deputy director of AA), Thomas Sherlock (teacher of political science) and Paul Kucik (economic analyst in the Office of Economic and Manpower Analysis), 2002 - keep
*"PC Game Vision and Realization", booklet of The MOVES Institute, 2004  We already link to this website.  I'm sure people can find the promotional material if they want it.
*"America's Army -- Behind the Scenes", blog of a former developer, 2005 - not sure It's an interesting inside view, but the anonymous nature of it makes it iffy as an encyclopedic piece.
*"E3 Update: America's Army polishes up its act" interview with Colonel Casey Wardynski at GameSpot, 2005 It's  pretty dull interview. Doesn't seem to have much that isn't already covered elsewhere.
That still leaves us with 7 links, which should be plenty for an EL section.
Does this look like a good clean up?  -- Siobhan Hansa 04:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Official publications and views of the developers

message: There should be something said about the new version (2.8) Also there is a mission editor. That has been long awaited and there is a "Mission Depot" that lets people share their missions. Tenio 00:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Version 2.8 out w/ Mission editor 

message: There are many images on this page which have no source and appear likely to be copyright violations. Please note all sources and justify anything considered fair use. Images that cannot be proven to be legal to use on Wikipedia may otherwise listed on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images for deletion. 119 06:36, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I know very few about the U.S. copyrigth policy but since this game is from the U.S. army, a part of the federal goverment shouldn`t all the images extracted from it be on the public domain? And another thing, anyone have stats of how important is this game in the gamers world? because I have a arguing with a dude in forum and he say that there is 80 million of active users and 150.000 new accounts are created every day, so, anyone have info about it? if that is true then cs and wow are just dust in the wind.--ometzit<col> 02:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go to http://www.americasarmy.com/ and look to the middle right of the page. There are stats there about the number of players. Currently, there are about 8 million registered, 4 million who have completed trainig, 50 thousand new users this month and 2 thousand registered servers. CS is only the biggest because of the servers , servers are free to set up in CS while they cost money in AA. If honour servers in AA were free then it would probably be a bigger game.Tenio 05:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can set up AA servers for free too. I should know, I have done it. It's only Honour servers that you have to pay for. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by -OOPSIE- (talk • contribs) 07:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyrights

message: Those people who play America's Army list there name here:
Destructo 087 03:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  This is not a discussion forum for the game but for the encyclopedia article about the game.  --ElKevbo 14:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Players

message: I know that there are also versions for military-internal non-public use, which have a different (greater) set of features and are used as training tool for troops. However it is not so different that you could call it a different game, a lot of those advanced features later found their way into the normal version (better UT engine, vehicles, weapons etc). I think this is important and worth to be mentioned, however I don't dare to edit the article myself. --84.134.214.65 08:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is shortly mentioned here. --Theodore Witness 14:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Government Versions 

message: Version 1.x and version 2.x are basicaly the same game. One evolved into the other gradualy. But version 3.0 is a complete rewrite, using new code and a new graphics engine. Its a new game in all but name. So shouldn't America's Army 3.0 get its own seperate page? Other games series have their own entry per game. Just look at Final Fantasy for an extreme example. -OOPSIE- 12:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree (I'm CFB, by the way).  From what I've been told by an AACM a while back, AA 2.x will still be supported and played after 3.0 is released.  Isn't it a bit early to be discussing this, though?  We still have at least a year before it is released. Danielizzat 19:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it is a bit early. But there are plent of other games that had pages on wikipedia, quite some time before they were released. World of Warcraft was released on January 18th 2005, yet its earliest page on wikipedia is dated 26th novermber, 2003. -OOPSIE- 23:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I certainly believe it deserves its own article, if as you say, it is indeed entirely a new game. I know nothing about 3.0 so the only problem is, I don't think there's enough info about 3.0 to create such an article. Was there anything recently said about it, aside from its use of the Unreal Engine 3? 72.49.194.69 12:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Version 3.0 is a new game 

message: :Image:Boxart sfas.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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 18:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Boxart sfas.jpg