Talk:America's Army/Archive 7

message: OK, I went through the article and made some changes. Mostly copyediting but I removed/changed parts that were blatant POV problems, things that didn't belong in the article, redundant parts, and things which made no sense. I reverted the Controversy and part of the Realism sections back to the old ones because they were too poorly written and I didn't want to bother deciphering them. If you want to readd them go ahead but please rewrite them and take your time when you do. I left the link to America's Army Controversy in, even though it is poorly written at best and blatanly biased at worst. I also removed the Accounts and Third Party Utilities sections because they were wastes of space. Please comment on my edits and try not to just revert them. --Kukuman 09:14, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "It would claim the game had trainings missions for the multiplayer mode, but it does not in reality." Have you even played the game? There is entire mulitplayer level that is a training map that require MILES (laser tag only) in a fake urban environment. Ele9699 21:11, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Look you are wrong, the level is not a combat mission like the others. Its only laser tag, and the players sit down when they "die". This is not like other missions which are meant as hypothetical, but "real" combat. Ele9699 21:59, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: some edits by kukuman

message: :Should AA:SF split off from the AA page? The intial AA:o versions have a number of differences over SF, and a lot of reviews handle them seperately. As changes accumulate with SF additions (new weapons etc) the page is going to be quite large, and for example a article doesn't need to talk about future developments really since its not updated anymore. Ele9699 18:46, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course NOT! How many articles would wikipedia comprise if you created a new article for every version of software???? A question like this is just ridiculous. RememberMe 19:00, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Umm it wouldn't be for "every version", one for the intial versions up to V1.9, and the other for the second big release SF. SF changed a LOT of things and it doesn't make sense to combine them some things are true for one but not the other. Ele9699 19:29, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Perhaps... neverthless the differences are growing with each new release so it some point it will make more sense to have two smaller articles then one large one. Here is the boxart for sf when that time comes. Ele9699 02:44, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, they've a new cover for the hand-out version (it is extremely rare that this cover is seen because the game is downloaded by an overwhelming majority) and they have partly changed the name to make the game appear to be new. However, it is merely an update and doesn't end or begin America's Army at all. The name changes all the time, and new version of the game come and go. There was also America's Army: Recruit or something, the first version. Another name, another version, nothing worth considering. You cannot call America's Army a series because it is ONE developing game. An update is NOT a new game. An optical apportionment makes no sense, an apportionment relating to contents is needed, an apportionment in non-fiction and fiction. I've explained why already, in the section below this.NightBeAsT 20:50, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Well it depends on the situation, somtimes having two smaller articles can work better then a single larger one. As for the names for the intial versions 1- 1.9, they were mainly patches to the intail version under the name 'operations', and are good to be combined in as single entity. With 2.0 the main name was now Special Forces, and was a bigger change then the previous patches and changed many features in addition to just game content- changes that grow more significant with each new patch to SF. For example, SF was reviewed independly of the first versions by news sites.  The other names your talking about, are the names of patches (i.e 'firefight' etc.)which add content under the banner of a release name. These patches are comparable to a expansion pack that are commonly released for other games. Ele9699 18:07, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: When I tried to establish an article for something called Habbo Hotel for the German version of Wikipedia, it nearly got deleted on grounds of irrelevance. In fact, the irony is that this pointless game has more players than America's Army does. Video games are part of culture, but they come and go and are extremely numerous and certainly many doubt articles about video games are educating at all.
Certainly America's Army is especially interesting concerning its background and therefore needs to be included if other famous games are included too, but would that justify a new article? Because the background remains the same? Because there are several versions that slightly changed the gameplay and made it up to date so America's Army can survive? Because a new article of America's Army would contain almost the same as any other version's article would? Would THAT really make the article smaller and spare room, or would that just create two similar articles of (almost) the same space? I even doubt it would shorten ANY article, not to mention that it would just multiply primarily. Above all, while you insist on calling the game a series of games because it has updates (Warcraft is a series of games - there is Warcraf 1-3, but is Warcraft 3 a series?? It has updates too. Is an update a new game or an update of a game??). Now, you can say America's Army is a modification of Unreal Tournament, just like you can say Counter-Strike is a modification of Half-Life: both are mods but some versions don't depend on the mother game. A modification is a modification if the version is modificated from the mother game, and this both fits for America's Army and Counter-Strike. Sure, you'd now like to point out that UT and AA are very different, but then you would introduce a border between modification and game capriciously, say depending on your matter of opinion. So you see: calling America's Army a game instead of a simple modification even plays down the truth. But suddenly it's even a series of games that needs a new article for some irrelevant updates that changed next to nothing???? If you really want two articles, you can create one for reality of America's Army and America's Army make-believe part. Just because a part of the name after America's Army has changed to appear new doesn't justify a new article. If you like you can create new articles on Albert Einstein for updates / every new year of his life. But I guess America's Army, a computer modification, is far more relevant and needs more articles than a simple man.NightBeAsT 00:33, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Many gaming sites have reviewed them as seperate games. Intersting points, but there may come a point when its better to have 2 smaller articles then one larger one. Ele9699 22:01, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Should AA:SF be split off