Your first question (on mp avatar limitation) and second question (on terrorism) are connected.

My definition on propaganda goes to Babark's #42 post. There needs to be some element of misinformation present, even if achieved by elision of other information. You probably kind of agree since that lack of the terrorist pov is what you are referencing. You also compare SP games, and indeed, avatar limitation is a staple of shooters. That would mean AA is no more propaganda than most FPS games (Call of Duty, etc), which is kind of what I said if you'll notice (I did NOT make any SP / MP distinction).

Then if you actually accept terrorism as bad instead of "bad" - and let me remind you I'm not saying terrorism is ANY and ALL irregular warfare - then if the second side is terrorists, that carries meaning, and such meaning may be sculpted by the creators without it being propaganda.

Basically and simplifying hugely it's not propaganda to say GOOD is GOOD. It is propaganda to say BAD is GOOD. Hence my comment that calling AA propaganda is more a reflection of how you feel morally towards USArmy (or armies in general) rather than the actual mechanic avatar choices in the game. Basically, AA is not journalism ;) it should not be expected to present a neutral pov. Just because most other games permit to play as the "bad" guys, does not mean AA must also, or it's automatically propaganda. Again, just to be very clear, I'm not saying AA is free of propaganda, I'm just saying the avatar limitation you point out is imo a bad example of it, the level of propaganda is similar to most FPS.

Thanks for clarifying on the MP aspect, as that clearly was the evidence for propaganda that you cared about. Hope my disagreeement is also clearer. When you wrote: "America's Army is possibly the only multiplayer shooter ever that omits this option. Why? Obviously because it's not just another military shooter, it's a propaganda tool." I only disagree with one word (considering also the rest of that whole paragraph even), guess which? Scratch propaganda, insert recruitment and you have more than enough explanation. Of course AA is unique, it was clearly designed to help recruit people into a specific organization, but that's not necessarily propaganda, just like me saying, "Come work for Megacorp, we're great!" is not propaganda just because I elide to mention other companies. Marketing =/= propaganda, even if propaganda is always marketing.

Hej Kasper,

You may get your points across in a somewhat unpolished way, but you most assuredly put in the effort. :)
Also as I said higher, I go more with Babark's defining of propaganda, rather than yours. (this must be the thread for surprise agreeement...) I read later post where you kind of agree, yet I'd like to say the meaning of propaganda has not changed. I do believe you were using it too far to begin with.

Your concern with government power is actually something I'm very much in agreeement. Almost anarcho-libertarian heh? Still, speech and communication I exempt of that, though I do ask for honesty and transparency, otherwise yes, I'd see propaganda elements easier. AA wears its message in its sleeve openly. It's recruitment, that does not automatically mean propaganda.

Consider than no one (well, mostly) has ever considered government advertisement campaigns as propaganda automatically. Are anti-smoking ads propaganda? Go Seatbelts, Go Bike Helmets, Boo DUI... Go Obamacare? ;) All propaganda just because it's the government doing it? That's too far... and it's from you, not the dictionary. Propaganda never was == government marketing. One can disagree with government marketing outside of elections / referendums for other reasons (abuse of power basically).

Basically, the aspect where a lot of people see propaganda when it comes to military is either ironic or hipocrisy, easily explained by historical factors. In a mechanic sense (as my examples hopefully show) there is nothing different from advertising x or y. The difference is in the x or y, not its advertisement.

Edit: typos

Very mildly disagree. Yes, roleplaying is one of the main motivations for gaming / acting sure, but mastery is equally important and involves none of those potential issues in the first place - yes I noticed you yourself marshalled arguments against the issues of representation / avatar choice dominating over one's atual ego. Just the ludic vs role/story aspect of playing is something I think about often.

You neither disagree with what I've said, nor with what I had in mind xD! Sure - there's the competing (against AI or other people) and there's the story, different games focus on different aspects... Both these things are "play".
Hell - this is pretty much what I wrote my thesis on. Check this book out. The Wikipedia article mentions the (IMO) most interesting thing - 4 types of play.
Aside from the intellectual sandbagging, my post was basically "I like using my imagination".

Well, disagreement is a spice of life, hence I'm sure you'll forgive me for that baiting ;)

I got to thinking on these topics from two routes:
1 - my studies and particularly statistics and emergent 'behaviors', some mathematical game theory, information complexity as entropy, and role of randomness in quantum mechanics
2 - my gaming hobbies, a growing awareness of the mechanic design of videogames, considering games classification, genres and different media, and how different games scratch very different itches - up to considering language as a game a la Wittgenstein (which attracts me to reading the mustard, despite its fame for lack of accessibility), most definitively reading Koster, Crawford, etc...

I can assure you that seeing these two converge was quite unexpected, at least at a conscious level. Now a question. Huizinga always comes up, and this Caillois fellow is new to me, as the sociological / philosophical route was not mine. Care to suggest 2 more tomes to add to this Man, Play n Games (now in my wishlist) which would be good primers to those approaches?

In fact, any game design stuff from outside of videogames I'd also find quite interesting (board or card games, as sport I doubt anyone has analysed similarly). And finally, how original was your thesis, is it in PL, and is it publically available?

Every time I see this thread title on the main page I think of hairy truck drivers wearing dresses and charging into battle with machine guns as they war with megaphone wielding robots.

I know that description doesn't really do justice to the arguments being exchanged here... just wanted to mention that. Thought it was kinda funny. Gave me a case of chuckle-itis.

Or a big burly 4-star General type doing a Bugs Bunny pose in a frilly number <shudders>

Thank you for this informative, well thought out and insightful post, well worth necroing a nearly decade all thread.

I know it's still only May, but I think you're a shoo-in for the coveted GoG Forum Golden Facepalm award.

You made me laugh indirectly.

I imagined a horror movie where greedy corporatists/ drunk teens/ foolish archaeologists accidently release some ancient horror from its tomb. As the monster rawrs at people, instead of reacting with horror, they fold their arms and look at the people who released it with disdain. "Really? You necro'd a 3000yr old mummy?! You better have a damn good reason for doing so! Oh pipe down Raxanhotep, we'll get to you in a minute."

And the poor creature, crestfallen, slinks back to its tomb and closes the hatch, waiting for a different era with less snarky mortals.

Well my interest is piqued, 3000day old necro or not!

At least it’s not considered as archived closed thread at least still not yet.

Well I know what ill be searching up on the web tonight

Ban Daisuke as Rita Repulsa..