Talk:Mass Effect/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Sex Controversies

I think it should be a little more condensed. It's more or less a tempest in a teapot, and doesn't deserve that many paragraphs - just a single paragraph stating the who/what/why. JAF1970 (talk) 23:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Seconding this. Peptuck (talk) 23:21, 28 January 2008

(UTC)

Mabey but if the .....untrue facts of Fox and the bloger arn't cleared it may become something people beleive

That makes no sense. JAF1970 (talk) 20:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I believe he's saying that the controversy has drawn attention, and it does take some space to adequately present the facts of the matter. --Kizor 02:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

This section has grown far in disproportion to the event. Please see WP:WEIGHT -- this section is now spending significant space representing viewpoints that received no major media coverage, or is single or self-sourced only. This needs to be trimmed way back to just the bits about Fox News and EA's responses -- the meat of the controversy. All of the commentary around it is immaterial unless you can source that this commentary is important (i.e. via multiple RS.) For example, placing Adam Sessler's viewpoint alongside the New York times really belongs in a blog, not on Wikipedia. regards, --guyzero | talk 06:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It still needs a bit more copyediting. I agree with User:JAF1970, above. One or two paragraphs with who/what/why is all the space needed for this 'controversy' within the larger article on the videogame. thanks! --guyzero | talk 07:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Looking back over the edit history, I'm of the opinion that far far too much attention has been given to the event compared to the rest of the article and it's bording on being a farce now, if it's not there already. Petrarch 18:30 5 February 2008 (GMT)

Weaponry

There should be more about how the weapons in the game work, especially the small arms. The in game explanation of why the small arms don't need to be reloaded by the player is very interesting. I'll try to get around to adding it if i can, though i do not object to others having a go at it.
Mullhawk (talk) 02:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

if it gets too large it may need its own site to avoid the article getting too clutterd(211.31.189.93 (talk) 01:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC))

Kudos to the author(s) of the "Weapons and equipment" section. I couldn't have done it better myself. No, seriously, I couldn't have.
Mullhawk (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

PC Version

I don't think this belongs in the article at all - one retailer claiming a release date for a PC version falls far short of conclusive proof it's on the way or even exists at all. Unless it's directly stated by Bioware, Microsoft or EA I feel it should be removed. Any thoughts? (Petrarch 13:37 10 January 2008 (GMT)

Yes it would be an inclusion of undue weight. It's a speck of speculation at best, for the moment. Chensiyuan (talk) 15:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I removed it, the link was in Czech (I assume, it wasn't english) and therefore non-verifiable, and even if it was in English its still not reliable at this point.Mad031683 (talk) 06:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Not that I think this shouldn't have been removed, but a link being in a foreign language certainly does not make it non-verifiable... -Elmer Clark (talk) 10:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I do think the current proof is quite conclussive. It would seem that the retailer who intialy released information might have had inside information. Alyeska (talk) 19:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
There isn't just one retailer reporting this. FileFront has an article on it, though I have to agree that it's not exactly verifiable. --clpo13(talk) 20:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
The yahoo link looks fine as an RS. cheers, --guyzero | talk 20:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
At this point the PC version is fully confirmed. Bioware themselves have stated a PC release and they created a forum just for the PC version with PC screenshots. Alyeska (talk) 21:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Critical Reception

I've noticed in most major video games articles there is a critical reception section which includes information on scores, awards and reviews from trusted sources such as Gamespot, IGN, Game Rankings, Gamespy, etc. I suggest we do the same here, Eatspie (talk) 21:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Wiki is being persnickity

(couldn't get this to save in the right place, somebody screwed up the discussion page)

The moment EA issued a letter asking FOX for a public apology, this event became a solid controversy and deserved mention with as much detail as possible. It's neutral, notable, and not original research. It could have it's own article but then there would be complaints about that being a problem, I'm sure. How much more discussion does there have to be? First it was, it doesn't deserve mention at all and now it's the same clique arguing undue weight. Losing the first arguement doesn't add merit to a second arguement to achieve the same end result with a different policy. While no one should fault trying a new tactic to win a battle already lost, discretion truly is often the better part of valor.

However, trimming a few sentences and condensing wouldn't hurt, but the controversy does deserve to be mentioned and explained sufficiently. (Given the length of discussion on this, there's no need to erase the whole controversy section so keep that in mind when unilaterally making "your" Bold textWikipedia conform to yourBold text standards.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KeeperOTD (talk • contribs)

I fixed the talkpage, there was a loose ref that blanked a couple sections. The paragraphs directly were correctly signed by keeperotd but his sig was lost due to the talkpage error. I don't know how to subst in the correct signature other than using the unsigned template. Regards, guyzero | talk 01:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
In response to KeeperOTD, above, nobody has tried to delete the controversy section. AFAIK all discussion has been around how far back to trim it. thanks, --guyzero | talk 01:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That was pretty weird. I have seen an article where something sim. happened during an edit war and someone found a way to edit without leaving digital "fingerprints" (pun intended). Unfortunately their stealth edit pooched how new legit edits went in. Not sure how they did it but it was a mess. Anyway, glad no one was trying to obliterate discussion topics. Get's bad enough with regular articles having unexplained, unjustified section deletions as is (and typically of things that others agreed on being kept). - KeeperOTD (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Street date violations

Street date was violated in canada too, I bought my copy of mass effect from a local roger's video store, atleast a good for or 5 days before the release date. Don't have any evidence though. I kepy my sticker saying 'do not sell before whenever' but forgot to keep the reset, heh.. Anyone have solid evidence of this violation to add to the article's section on Street date violations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.78.84.7 (talk) 07:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

About the sequal

Do you think that it should be mentioned that the sequal will also be on the PS3? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.190.109 (talk) 05:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Source? Peptuck (talk) 06:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
He may be referencing some articles from late last year by a guy called Patcher who said Mass Effect would come to PS3 - the key point to note however is that Patcher doesn't work for either EA or Bioware, and Bioware themselves have stated several times (including after the EA takeover) that there was no plans to port the franchise over to the PS3. I believe EA and Microsoft also signed an agreement over the future titles and publishing duties but neither has commented on the issue of exclusive rights. So while the Xbox 360 version of Mass Effect 2 has been confirmed as in development, a PS3 version remains in the realms of speculation for now with no official word either way. Petrarch 12:55, 25 February (GMT)
Pachter is an industry analyst. He knows the gaming industry in and out. However Mass Effect (the first one) is pretty much assured that it won't be released on PS3. At least it seems that way, even though the first could always go the dual-publisher route (MS publishes the 360 versoin, Sony publishes the PS3 version.. it's happened before). The fact MS is so quiet about exclusivity rights probably means the "contract" I keep hearing about is either null or never existed. Personally, I think this whole contract talk is bull and that Bioware chose the 360 for the first title due to the userbase, meaning more chance of success. Meh.. back on topic.. though there is a big chance of a PS3 version with EA at the wheel, the 360 version is the only version "confirmed" so far, so it's the only version which deserves a mention. Leave the article as it is. 12.205.224.183 (talk) 03:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

NOT A FORUM JAF1970 (talk) 23:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)