215 replies to this topic

[Juni Ori]

Heh, that's quite frightening thought, Daka...

[Stroggy]

Well, it is said that nothing is ever free

[Sinke]

Stroggy

Quote

I think you're being a bit hyperbole there, Sinke.

What exactly?


DakaSha:

Quote

the game was made by the army. its not for you to decide what should be/not be there.

look at it this way: its a great game that is a free download.. its not like you get 30 days free gaming and then have to sign up with the army.

I agree, it's not my site. But as it's user, I can add a constructive criticism.
It's great game, a free download, and a corrupted mind control tool.

[Tulac]

Except if you have filters then you just laugh at it

[Stroggy]

Sinke, on Jun 23 2006, 05:45 PM, said:

What exactly?

Quote

I don't want that rubbish in a computer game.

and that whole thing about it being beneath our standing and pedigree (cool, I didn't even know we had a pedigree!)

Quote

It's great game, a free download, and a corrupted mind control tool.

So... like most games, only free (and good).

[Juni Ori]

Stroggy, exactly!

[DakaSha]

i really dont see whats so mind controlling about it.. if EA would have made it exactly the same way nobody would say anything.

it could be ALOT worse

[DeathDude]

Indeed since it's the U.S army who put their stamp on the game it obviously must be corrupting, uh how about no.

And doubt it daka if EA made the game there wouldn't still be a fuss, if the idea and premise is there and people do the research which most would probably do, they could trace it back to where the idea originated so it would still be evident.

Besides it's a game that was the point of why it was made not to encourage recruits to sign up, if some sign up because of the game so be it, that's their choice, it's not a forced choice that you have to sign up, so don't go too deep with the game, it's similar to like gta if you go deep with that game and look at all you can do.

[Juni Ori]

I believe the idea was if EA had alone done the game, or did I misundestand? If I didn't misunderstand, then your point doesn't stand, DD. Anyways there would be whining about how US-sided it is, just like every frigging WW2 FPS has received. And I admit I'm one of those whiners. I'm still waiting game, where you're German soldier. There would be huge amount of possibilities, btw.

But I think your GTA comparison was excellent!

[DeathDude]

Well the point I was going for is if EA alone had thought up the idea and released the game, that people would still draw the comparisons to where the ideas originated from, which would lead in this case to the U.S Army, maybe not so much but that's hard to guess.

Indeed it would be nice to see some variety in the WW2 FPS, medal of honour does it wayy too much U.S sided of the situations, Call Of Duty though did a nice job with the different sides, U.S, Britain, Russia, yeah only the allies side but least gave a different perspective.

[Juni Ori]

It's interesting how you can play strategic games and flight sims (how about tank sims) as German, but not a single FPS. And why to limit it to Germans? There are many others too: Italy, Japan, Romania, Bulgaria, etc. etc.

What I'd like to see: 1st Poland (easy start), 2nd Winter War (desperate defence, though not yet Axis in any sense), 3rd Norway (a little different terrain), 4th assault to Belgium and France, 5th Balkan, 6th Crete (fallschirmjäger), 7th Op. Barbarossa, 8th Stalingrad (player taken prisoner and/or killed), 9th Kursk (massive tank battle), 10th Sicily, 11th Monte Cassino, 12th Normandy, 13th Ardennes, 14th Budapest, 15th Berlin!

[Stroggy]

Juni Ori, on Jun 23 2006, 07:19 PM, said:

(how about tank sims)

I know Panzer Elite allows the player to play the game from different sides through many epic (and some not so epic) tankbattles... like the Kursk!

Anyway, we're drifting off topic.

[Juni Ori]

Are we? Actually I don't think so, because it works on the root level, when player is always put in the ranks US forces! In truth - and I'm in no way saying that US aid wouldn't had played very important part - most of the battle in West Front and Africa was fought by British forces, numbers never even compareable with Soviet forces in East Front! It is quite clear that - with US and UK aid - Soviets wore Wehrmacht, Waffen-SS and Luftwaffe to defeat. However, only now there's some credit given to Red Army (Call of Duty, for example). Propaganda I say. Quite in topic I say.

[Shunk Eat Enemy]

Quote

As I understand, the game's official site has information about recruiting centres as well as recruitment events. I don't want that rubbish in a computer game. I don't mind the game itself, but I think this site has much more honor and pedigree and that America's Army doesn't deserve to be here. This site deserves better.

So you would like to deny the right of AR hosting a game (AA) so that someone who just feels like playing a realistic war game?

Games are for playing and having fun. If they jam some join the army thing in your face everytime you play just X it out and continue with your gaming.

Most war games are US focused because we make a large majority of them?
One medal of honor game allowed you to play as the Brits and the Russians.
that was a nice change of pace.

Be happy you dont have to pay for AA. If you did they would send you mail every week.

[Juni Ori]

Medal of Honor? Wasn't it Call of Duty? And yeah, I understand why most of the games are US-focused, but there're many excellent non-US game makers who don't have patriotic excuse and could do something little different!