Talk:Red Faction: Guerrilla

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Red Faction: Guerrilla article.

Article policies
Famicom style controller This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the assessment scale.
A request for a screenshot has been made to help better illustrate the article. (VG images department)

Contents

[edit] sequel?

Do we know it's the sequel to red faction 2? I doubt we do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.9.212.224 (talk) 06:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Game Informer

Game Informer is having an in-depth preview. JAF1970 (talk) 22:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Declaring a potential conflict of interest

Per Wikipedia's policies, I'm going ahead and declaring I have a potential conflict of interest in this article as an employee of the company developing the game. I'll be trying to keep my edits to just adding sources/fixing mistakes. - JNighthawk (talk) 07:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speculation

Whilst I have assumed good faith, I have removed the following text again:

"The story takes place 50 years after the original Red Faction. The EDF who came at the end of Red Faction has stayed and Mars has been dominated by the EDF. Then a guerrilla movement has occurred, resulting in all out war between the miners and civilians on mars, and the EDF. The games goal is to cause as much damage to the EDF as possible, forcing them to leave the district, but they can come back later. It will be a sort of ebb and flow type of warfare."

Not only is it speculation about a game that is still a year away from release, but it barely makes sense in English. Further more, the supplied "reference" simply pointed to Wikipedia's own article on Game Informer. Game Informer's own website contains no review of this game and the other GI reference, to the March 08 cover, mentions the game in just one sentence (ie. "We also take Red Faction: Guerrilla apart, getting an in-depth look at the game’s amazing destructible environments"). Astronaut (talk) 00:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

If you need better written source, how about this one at shack news? Astronaut (talk) 00:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
'Further more, the supplied "reference" simply pointed to Wikipedia's own article on Game Informer.' No, it pointed to the magazine Game Informer; specifically the March 2008 issue, which contains a detailed explanation of the basic gameplay model. Citations aren't required to be Internet pages. --DocumentN (talk) 01:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Maybe you created the reference incorrectly. When I clicked on the link (the one labelled with the little [4]), it went straight to Game Informer. Following links through to the online version I could find no mention of this game. A google search did however find another source - shacknews.com - with much the same info as I removed. Since, my claims of "speculation" were a little harsh, I've since updated the article to use the new reference and improve the game description so it makes sense. Astronaut (talk) 01:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
As a point of fact, it's okay if the link goes to the Game Informer article, as long as the reference stated it was from Game Informer. It is 100% allowed by Wikipedia rules and encouraged to cite written sources. Since they're written sources, you obviously can't find them online, but they are completely acceptable to be used on Wikipedia. - JNighthawk (talk) 03:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Press coverage

Can someone add some about the recent press coverage RFG has received at THQ's Gamers Day? Here's a few links to previews/interviews:

  • [1] - Video interview with Rick White, producer of RFG
  • [2] - Gamespot preview of RFG
  • [3] - 1UP's preview of RFG
  • [4] - GameDaily preview of RFG

There's plenty more, but most of them are saying the same thing. If someone doesn't add them, I'll go about doing it myself. - JNighthawk (talk) 01:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)