Video games Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

The unit descriptions need serious edits. Can someone fix them? 72.197.96.86 05:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will. The unit descriptions here will serve as the base for my C&C: Generals rewrite. In a few weeks (like two maybe) this will be all new and (hopefully) easier to use. TomStar81 02:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I think the entire 'Units' section should be moved to Wikibooks. WP:NOT a game guide. Cynical 11:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just tagged that section for cleanup. I think the unit descriptions belong here, but they need some serious rewriting, and removal of POV. --Stretch 07:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This text was added to the article and may be POV. I leave it to these with more knowledge of this issue than I to sort out.

Racism

The game tends to have certain qualities which may be seen as subtly, or at times blatantly, racist by a number of people. For instance, the United States are made out to be the ultimate "good guys", and their war efforts are aimed at nothing but the humanitarian good of the people of the world, which rather departs from reality, and could even be seen as a propaganda effort. China, while being the ally of the US, is seen as a dirty, machine-driven, nuclear state that cares little for its people, sending swarms of underarmed units to die against a few better armed units of the other factions. The GLA is made out to be an idealogyless group that has no qualms of saying that they are terrorists. Indeed, they have units that are simply labelled as "terrorist", and they are a decidedly Middle-Eastern/Central Asian organization, and though it is not stated, it is heavily implied that they are Islamists with much support from their local populace's, thereby making military intervention on behalf of a superpower (to the point of the superpower using WMD's against them) justified. This plays on the stereotype that Arabs and Muslims are synonymous with terrorism. Apart from what strikes many to be the antagonization and belittlement of the Middle East, and its peoples and cultures, the game employs stereotypical accents in broken english for the Chinese and GLA units. In addition to this, the 'benevolent' US armies are depicted as being wholley white, with no African-American, Latino-American, Arab-American, or any other visible minority units, which of course is untrue to the US military.

Rjm656s 06:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Utter bs. You were right to remove it. --Chodorkovskiy ^(talk) 15:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is an undertone to the game, as it is overly simplistic to say that for example insurgents in Iraq are terrorists because they kill civilians when they attack americans, but when americans kill civilians that recieves another name instead of terrorism (fighting for their freedom perhaps?). Facts such as those are delicate or complicated, and above all things not "utter bs" as one user so elegantly put it. But, besides all that, you were right to remove it for one reasson, and that is: Its just a game, period. In a lot of ways the game does nothing but doing what is the standard west view on these issues, and if in the game all american troops are white, maybe its because more than half of the population of the U.S. happends to be white (i believe its around the 70%, i havent checked in a while).

Excised the whole bit about "racism," due to the fact that in it's current form, it was little more than the writer's opinion. Also, the part about the United States' portrayed benevolence as "depart[ing] from reality" is such an egregious POV violation that I can't believe the author included it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DrZin (talk • contribs)

I agree with this. It seems to to be on the edge of gibberish, and is all POV. I have the game, and China is not represented in any such way, its how the player plays the game, not to mention the GLA is actually a terrorist faction, and not just generic Islamic civilians the other forces have assumed to be terrorists. I suggest revising this section, or even removing it, as some of the things stated are not true at all. From the above discussion, it seems others are thinking the same. Born Acorn 21:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Am I going insane or did the paragraph stating that China is overpowered say that America was overpowered a few weeks ago? -Rim-Fire 20:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. That's why I placed the "unverified" tag - the whole paragraph's got to be rewritten using official sources. --Chodorkovskiy ^(talk) 16:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"the Generals series, interestingly enough, is banned in China" (source needed)

"the unique units for each faction (USA:Colonel Burton, China:Black Lotus, GLA:Jarmen Kell) resemble Warcraft III's Heroes" (They resemble the heroes from C&C 2, but thats just my opinnion on it)

" Many various players even go as far as to call it "Age of Generals"" (source for this, who are these "many various players")

"Military buffs in America also criticize the Zero Hour expansion for painting a bleak picture for the US's outcome in the war on terror as China emerges the true victor in the end (after the US recieves a major setback at the hands of the al-Qaida-like GLA" (source for it or erase it, either way, isnt this a spoiler?)

"most players feel China and the USA are too strong and are too difficult to play against." (In a poll done at Westwood, GLA was second place, with America on the first place and China on third. Either way, is there a source for this?, a forum perhaps)

"Due to this some fans feel that anyone who uses China (and some factions of the USA, mainly Superweapon general) as their choice of team are considered to be lacking in skill and will generally be given the title of 'n00b'." (how ansgty, come on now, wheres the source for that one?)

"Black Lotus is overly strong compared to the GLA's Jarmen Kell and USA's Col. Burton" (its funny, all this time i had read that Burton was overpowered)

"Generals is a well known testing bed for gamers wishing to judge their ability level. Many pro players are capable of destroying his/her opponent in a matter of minutes, whereas unskilled players would take a considerable amount of time to win, if not utterly destroyed first." (This paragraph makes no sense, or makes little importance whatsoever)

"One of the main goals of Generals is balancing, from the beginning of the game to advanced stages; every side has enough power to survive. This is unlike Red Alert 2" (conflicts with the statement above that says that the game is unbalanced, make up your mind here, is either balanced or not)