Talk:The Matrix Online

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is not a forum for general discussion of The Matrix Online.
Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.
MMOG logo This article is within the scope of WikiProject Massively multiplayer online games, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of massively multiplayer online games. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the the assessment scale.
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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
A request for a screenshot has been made to help better illustrate the article. (VG images department)
VG To-do:

Contents

[edit] RuneScape

Is this supposed to be kinda like RuneScape? --daunrealist 1 July 2005 02:52 (UTC)

I dont think this game can be comapred to RuneScape since they are completely different types of games, aside from rpg elements. RuneScape has characters and combat like mxo has, but mxo is all 3d and massively multiplayer and RuneScape is topdown rpg. Go to gamespot.com or 1up.com and do some research.

Are you kidding me? RuneScape is a MMORPG! Duh! Can anybody please clarify and answer my question better?

MxO is a 3D MMORPG. It has basic concepts that are true to most MMO's such as character creation, levels, abilities, factions and turn based combat. The major difference between MxO and many other MMOs is the story line as continued via the live events in game. Additionally there is an in-game buddy list powered by AIM that makes keeping track of friends much easier and is accessible outside of the game when signed in with your character name into AIM. A nice feature that I've never seen in an MMO. Hope that helps. --Jenn 8/9/05

Yeah, thanks. Maybe I should get it. --daunrealist 02:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edit

Deleted the POV statement Combat is where MxO excels, this statement has no place in wiki, however if a source(s) claims that players very much enjoy the combat system then add it. However, I have heard from many many people and articles that combat is the weakest part in the game, and has been criticized by many. Theres no need for me to add this to the description though.

[edit] Newest event

The most recent MxO event has been over a long period of time rather than simply being focused on a specific time period. It also had no definitive beginning. How should it be listed? ShadowMan1od 06:58, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

events should be listed by the cinematic they correspond to. Nightfall and Race for the One do not have cinematics, but should still be mentioned.

Ehn...there are even instances where it seems to me like hairs have been split when they shouldn't have been. Somebody who actually plays the game needs to overhaul the Major Events section, no? Adam Marx Squared 00:23, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
The events do not always correspond to the cinematics. As a regular player, I think the current state of the story summary section is adequate and accurate. Most of the names of those sections for the story summary came from the live event titles back when the game had a dedicated Live Events Team to create events, which often didn't correspond to any given cinematic (like the Nightfall event). Also, the story is progressing at a approximately half the expected speed, which accounts for the length of time that some of the events have taken to resolve (like the recent Unlimit happenings). NDale 07:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rumors

I removed some things from the rumors section that have been confirmed. The Assassin was an old recycling program that escaped deletion. The Assassin is dead now as well. ShadowMan1od 03:25, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Now I understand. Yeah, logical enough. Adam Marx Squared 20:01, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What does this mean?

The article states that the game had

sold only 43,100 copies (with 33,100 being zion) as of June 2005

(my emphasis). What does this mean? The term "zion" is not defined anywhere in the article: is it an in-game reference?

—Phil | Talk 10:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


Zion is one of the three organizations joinable in the game. Being the ones who want to free humanity, they are generally considered the "good guys," which most players want to be.

LoL musta been some angry merv or machine who typed that up...their isnt that many zion :P

[edit] What does this mean too?

Another oddity in the "Race to find the One" portion of the Major events section: What on earth does this sentence mean? "Shapers were found the could maniputate the rsi fragments into the shape of Neo's mental projection." Someone who knows more should re-work that. Thanks. badmonkey 12:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Shapers were red/bluepills that could manipulate code in the Matrix - they were Dev or LESIG-controlled characters that each organisation were trying to bring to their own side, so that the collected Fragments of Neo's RSI could be recreated into the One.

this was waaaay before lesig so the shapers where dev controlled. it was basicly an mmo version of capture the flag by shaking hte shapers hand and returning it to the base (subway)

Neo's RSI is currently in a Fight Club basement somewhere in the International District.

Baku 14:53, 22 November 2006

I thought it was Westview, Gracy Heights. Or is it different on the three servers?--Carpcarp 15:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It is in Gracy Heights, Westview, at the bottom of a the fight club located there.NightTrace 20:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fansite vanity?

It seems half of the External Links are links to random fansites. While I agree with the IGN link as it is a rather well established gaming and information site, the rest seem to just be vanity sites. You can easily find fansites through the official MxO page and forums. I'm going to delete them for now. If anyone has any major objections and would like to revert, please comment. FallenAngelEyes 23:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Some of the content of this wikipedia page resembles a fansite and I have tagged those sections as such in the article 71.30.130.253 17:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I respectively disagree. I've removed the tag from the storyline summary, but left it on rumors, critism, and lag.--Viridis 20:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can I remove this?

Anyone object to removing this line:

The Matrix Online is as close to an Action-MMOG as any manufacturer has come.

Aside from being ambiguous, there was an Action MMOG out long before mxo, Planetside.

It should be removed Adam Marx Squared 04:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missing definitions

The article uses a lot of acronyms with no proper definition. SOE is probably Sony Online Entertainment but it us best to use ...Sony Online Entertainment (SOE)... RSI is not defined either. I guess it is not Repetitive Stress Injury but still... And how about adding it to the RSI disambiguation page?

I was pretty sure it expressly noted RSI as referring to Residual Self-Image. Anybody who's watched the movies knows that, anyway! Adam Marx Squared 23:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Not everyone has watched the movies. And seeing RSI for the first time, I wouldn't know either. Another definition that's missing is redpill. It would be good to explain exactly what this means, such as "People who have voluntarily left the matrix and seen the real world". I was going to say that they joined the resistance, but I haven't played the game and I can't be sure of whether everyone fights against the machines.--72.70.53.87 22:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
You're correct, not everyone who is a redpill is a rebel, since only one third of them are Zionites, and even the Zionites are not all involved in any kind of resistance movement. Also, I agree that RSI should be defined, since the initialism was never used in the films, only the term "residual self-image." NDale 07:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I linked the first time RSI is mentioned to Residual self image--Viridis 00:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Matrixism

Is this site serious. And can someone explain the caption that goes with it.

- Sounds like a crackpot with too much free time. If you want to mix The Matrix with religion, your best bet is to follow Gnosticism; of which the Matrix series is an allegory of (listen to http://www.gnosis.org/Matrix.ram for more information). Also, this link has nothing to do with MxO other than the fact that the author states he was repeatedly banned from the MxO forums for promulgating his "religion." Villemar

- Removed the Link again. Getting sick of removing his crap that he posts here aswell. There is no valid reference To The Matrix Online and thus should be removed

- Matrixism actually comes up on a Google search for "wicole censta" which is one of the hidden keywords from MxO. Could be that matrixism is one of the game's ARG's.

- Yet the actual website is not relevent to the matrix online. Despite the fact it may contain a keyword it is not revelent to the game. If i see this again i think i am just going to report the ip address

[edit] Pay To Play?

Is The Matrix Online a Pay to Play game like Ragnarok Online? Or is it a "retail-purchase, then no more fees" game like Guild Wars?

The Matrix Online is pay to play. The subscription runs about $15 dollars a month. You can also order three month packages for less, I belive. You don't need to buy a physical copy of the game. It is downloadable, then you just pay the monthly fees. Villemar

I am quite sure that you have to pay for the download, too. Sure you can download a fully functional Trial Version, but you would need a key from a bought game after your trial period runs out. I might be mistaken, though.--Carpcarp 15:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unverified statements

I noticed some unsourced statements that seem typical of a disgruntled player in the article, so I took the liberty of removing them. Reasons mainly being: 1) they do not contribute much, beyond giving a vague sense that the game is somehow going downhill 2) they seem rather farfetched, how or why would a commercial game suddenly change to being "run by the players"? If someone wishes to research this and can verify that this indeed has happened, feel free to reinclude them. The additions were made by an anonymous user who by the time of this writing has no other contributions. --80.221.135.214 22:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

What was the nature of the claim that the game is currently "run by the players?" In a sense, that's accurate. With the layoff of the live events team last year, the development team recruited a group of players to help plan and perform live events. The players in the group never play major film characters, but they are often on the same crew and are often seen along side them. You're right that such a claim doesn't belong on the page and is likely just someone who's disgruntled with the current state of the game. NDale 08:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
This would also have been a reference to the fact that the moderation team of the official forums for MxO is comprised of entirely players. These people are picked from the community for various reasons [positive connections to current mods, repeated submitters of forum violations, etc]. This has lead many to become disgruntled because their posts/threads/forum privlages are being removed/modified by other players. However, you are correct that in this case it would not fit on this entry, and should have been removed.NightTrace 21:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

Article needs cleaning up, and probably updating as well. There are lots of grammatical mistakes; for example there are mixed and muddled tenses in the section describing the May 2006 events. Packersh 22:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Just my two cents as a user: The article is almost entirely incomprehensible and could stand a major rewrite. I'd volunteer to do it, but I don't know anything about The Matrix Online (which is, of course, why I came here in the first place).68.70.88.63 09:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Maybe the "Major Events" section should be to be renamed "Storyline" or "Plot Summary", since the events are no longer particularly major and don't have official names anymore. The plot summary should probably be shortened into a few paragraphs that cover the basics, like in the Metal Gear Solid article. One Star Bandit 05:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I changed the "Major Events" section to "Storyline Summary" due to the facts brought up by One Star Bandit. I would like to change / add a few things but other than the basic editing, I don't know/can't figure out how to do it.

[edit] Lack of Objectivity

I find it interesting that although other game titles have included the controversy regarding the business models, implementations and strategies of the companies who run these games (Such as Star Wars Galaxies, amongst others), this entry does not; although it received many critical reviews from third party entities.

It seems that this Wikipedia article is lacking in objectivity, and I will be noting this to Wiki.

I think SOE taking charge, the change in Live Event structure, and the "Champagne Room" all need mentions. ShadowMan1od 23:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  Ok I can see the 1st two bot the champagne room had nothing to do with SOE.  That was a bad decision in naming by a forum mod - Lazaros


SOE taking charge is already mentioned, the change to the LESIG model of live events doesn't really matter all that much to non-players, and... please. MxO has at least one dumb drama fiasco a month, the Champagne Room doesn't deserve even a passing mention. I'm not trying to sweep it under the rug, but it was predominantly the community's fault for overreacting. I wasn't even in the group and I didn't think the name sounded elitist, I actually thought it was very fitting. NDale 08:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
This is not a Wiki on Drama, thus really shouldn't include those controversies, but if someone can objectively write something, I'd be all for seeing it. As that hidden forum room or Sony's faults as a whole with MMO's. The Champagne room really doesn't deserve a mention, While the dropping of Live events, what was heavily billed as a buying point for MxO should be mentioned. (maybe I'll write something up on that)

As for LESIG, I think it should also get a mention. It's impact on the MMO especially, and use it as a reference point for other games to look at. --~XHideoNinja 19:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Generic Story Page?

I think that this should be a generic story page and should mention that you can go to the official website to get fansite links for more information as there are many out there that specialize in everything about the game. I think that this page should just be updated by people that play the game with information that directly relates to the story when new information is available. I think that was the original idea that the original creator had in mind. What do you think?

I disagree. This is still a game, just like anything else, and it deserves background on game mechanics and other such trivia. Even the pages for the films contain more than just a story summary. There are plenty of fansites that have more in-depth story summaries; WikiPedia should be for a more general description of the game. NDale 08:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The 'Wiki' External Link

I think the link to the "Matrix Online Community Wiki" should be removed... as it is not a Matrix Online Community Wiki, but a Matrix Online Community Wiki. Subtle difference.

(In other words, it has nothing to do with the game. It's a Wiki for the online fanbase.)--MythicFox 14:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Metacortex

The ARG metacortex, has nothing to do with MxO, and has been removed from this wiki.

[edit] Cleanup?

What about this wiki needs "cleanup"? Give me some directions and I'll be happy to do it. Z~

Don't see what needs to be 'cleaned up' on it. It meets all of Wiki's guidelines and is pretty neutral. Suggestions from others would be welcomed I guess. -HN

Seems fine to me, but it's basically intro, story, and rumors. We could talk more about the game's mechanics, classes, and features (ie-loading abilities instead of being stuck with what you choose).--Viridis 21:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
If I had to make sugeestions the article could be reworked like this:
Development/History
Gameplay
Missions
Classes
Live Events
Storyline (possibly shortened or on it's own page)
Community
Reactions
Just to start, with more as we go along. This is pretty much what other games have, I looked around to brainstorm. It's odd that all the MxO article has is the Storyline, even though that's a big part of the game.--Viridis 10:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I've moved everything from In this game you can join one of three organizations. They are... on into a gameplay section. I don't know enough to make a History section or anything else.--Viridis 10:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and polished up the first part of the Gameplay section. Some of it might fight better in the Organizations subsection, though. NDale 22:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Storyline definetly needs its own page, but I cut down on alot of the lengthy sections in it. The only lengthy section in the whole Storyline page should be the Hunt for Morpheus chapters, because it details a major and well-recognized character.

[edit] External Link

The comments in the article said to suggest it here first. The MxO Archive seems to be a good one to add. How about it?--Viridis 10:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

No opposition, so I'm adding it.--Viridis 19:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Adding a link to thematrix.rumbaar.net as it is an official MxO Data Node. 71.215.128.75 11:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Show proof that these links are official, or from a notable authoritative source. Otherwise they have no place in an encyclopedia--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 17:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Those recognised on the official website: http://thematrixonline.station.sony.com/players/links.vm

Rumbaar in particular has been an official DN since the game first launched. http://www.mxoarchive.net/archives/dn1/thematrixonline.warnerbros.com/web/live/links/fansites.html

And was even recoginised in the game's storyline as the name of the site of Morpheus' death http://www.thematrix.rumbaar.net/modules/MxO_Sentinel/07_01_05/index.html

Also, following your logic, linking to the vastly out of date and abandoned MxO Vault is more valid than linking to a perfectly up to date, informative link just because it isnt 'official'.

Rumbaar is mentioned as the name of a location in the game, no mention of the site itself is made. And FYI, almost every game company has a list of fansites, it does not make them "official." They are still fansites. If you start letting fansites in then you have to allow a link to every fansite under the sun, or establish some absurd and trivial rules regarding what qualifies. Thanks for pointing out the vault issue, if thats so bad it probably shouldn't be there either. In the interest of compromise I probably wouldn't object too strongly if http://thematrixonline.station.sony.com/players/links.vm were to be used as it gets the same thing done, but picking fansites to go up there is just baseless fanboyism. --Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 00:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, adding it now. Seems a nice trio to have actually, the website, the forums and the list of fansites.

[edit] Criticism

This really should have been talked about here first. Can someone who plays the game regularly evaluate the new section and make sure it's NPOV?--Viridis 08:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I tried posting this on the SOE page multiple times, but apparently, some user constantly deleted it. Dibol 18:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I can confirm the assertions made in criticism as true, essentially in their entirety (I do not know exact figures myself) as I was an active member on the forums and in the game during the transition. It would be nice to see direct citing but SOE did their usual stellar job of squashing all complaints on any page they controll.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 17:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I too can confirm the assertions made in criticism as true, as I had played the game since April 2005 (the end of the Nightfall event). These problems are still constantly talked about the forums as of now. Dibol 4:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised no one mentioned criticism of the LESIG team and the player moderators who are widely considered to be bias and unfair.

Problem is that all of the topics containing these complaints keep getting freaking deleted, and citing the sources is impossible. Dibol 18:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Wiki is not the place to stage your personal complaints or squabbles, especially without cited sources. Keep it to places designed for this kind of feedback and out of an encyclopedia. The LESIG program and associated critisms are however valid and will receive a clean up of obvious ranting in due course. --172.141.169.53 21:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I am the one responsable for placing the information in regards to the LESIG as well as adding information about the SOE critisims and I have noticed that, despite the fact that they were sited, information was still removed and comments of why they were removed include such things as that I was trolling and what not. I can assure the people who are in charge of this wiki that was not my intention. I played MXO for nearly three years and left due to lack of interest. I became aware of this page and endevoured to update it, but it seems that certain individuals who do not want the ignorant to know about the less then ideal actions and events of the game and its developers have completely removed all negative comments (Is it not Wikipedia's mission to be an Encylopedia? How can you be an encylopedia when you fail to provide all the information and only cherry pick what you consider ideal?) in regards to what has happened to the game and in the game during its time. Finally, I am aware of the fact that a majority of the sitings came from the DN1 forums, however considering this is a game such information is not available anywhere else. If this is a problem for those who control this page I apologize, but in all honesty such information needs to be included if you wish to provide the complete picture of this whole subject. Regards, DigitalSaber

The problems and criticisms with the lesig program are still covered, just in a much more enclylopedic neutral manner. Highlighting larger issues and criticisms is fine just so long as it's not wholely bias or point of viewed. --172.212.75.177 19:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms that I included were such things as why the head of the customer service representatives was holding "trivia" nights were completely removed as well as everything else in regards to developer, LESIG, and CSR conduct, most of which can be found on the forums, were removed. I can understand the need to keep an encyclopedic and neutral position on wiki pages, but removing the above mentioned casts the game in a false light and can even be considered bias in itself due to the fact or not mentioning some rather large breaches in conduct by those in charge of said game. DigitalSaber

I'd have to agree with DigitalSaber on this. Other than the forum links, there is no other source of information that covers the controversial issues on the game, as the developers are in a sense supposed to be tight-lipped about such issues no thanks to the SOE management. From what I have seen, there were at least five paragraphs dedicated to the criticisms, actually cited a sources of information to show that this stuff wasn't written out of someone's ass, and it got removed. If message board topics from the official forums are not considered sources of information, what the hell is? An average reporter wouldn't even have the time to investigate these problems and write it up for a gaming magazine. Dibol

The following are portions of the critisims that were removed that I feel need to be reinstated. I have taken the time to site -multiple- sources, both forum and website. If no one objects within the next few days I will replace the critisms listed below.

In 2006-2007 it was discovered that "Public Relations" Raijinn had created a secret forum known as the champagne room (His excuse for the name being that he wanted to keep things interesting) with the original purpose of gaining feed back from key players. However it was leaked that these key players were being given preferential treatment and allowed to ask for the admittance of others into this hidden room. The leaked information was publicly revealed on the general forums and those responsible were given the choice of either informing the admin's of who the leak was or be banned. Choosing not to reveal their leak, the individuals who revealed the existence of the sub forum were banned, though this was later reversed due to public out cry. In now removed threads, Raijinn was seen publiclly flaming players in regards to this whole situation. This incident has become known in the MXO community as "The Champagne room".

http://mmorpg.qj.net/category/The-Matrix-Online/cid/801 http://forums.station.sony.com/mxo/posts/list.m?topic_id=10400147113 http://forums.station.sony.com/mxo/posts/list.m?topic_id=10400147864

CSR-Brewko, Senior Game Master in charge of the handling of petitions, and well known in most SOE controlled games as being "Ban stick happy" has recently begun hosting "Matrix Trivia Contests" and using his GM abilities to change the visual appearance of players. Many have questioned the reason for as to why Senior GM Brewko has been allowed to begin interacting with the general player base during office hours.

http://forums.station.sony.com/mxo/posts/list.m?topic_id=36300014991 http://thematrixonline.station.sony.com/players/news_archive.vm?id=441&month=current

DigitalSaber

Great job censoring the fact that the playerbase is pissed off with how the game is handled, Oni. We both know the problems are valid, and I'm not sitting this out just because "It's against Wikipedia policy." We both know MxO is obscure to the public. We both know SOE's employees won't let the problematic issues go public. And last but not least, we both know that no qualified reporter will ever go near MxO because he/she doesn't know much about the game as much as the playerbase. Dibol 04:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you disagree with the way Wikipedia works. You don't have to be a part of this process if you disagree with it, though I am sure it would be much more beneficial to everyone if you continued editing within the fairly lax constraints that the Wikipedia community has set. Perhaps you could do what the majority of the functioning community does here when they disagree with the impact a policy is having and develop consensus for change. Yes SOE has problems, personally think they're one of the most incompetent entities in the industry, but that still doesn't change the fact that there are no reliable sources for this information. If we start accepting these sources, it sets a precedent to break the rules every time they don't work. I'd appreciate it if you don't say what "we both know" or don't, because first of all, what you are expressing is a belief, and putting semantics aside, I don't happen to agree with you on that one. If reporters and industry professionals aren't speaking of it, its probably because they aren't even aware of it. Sites like 1up.com will cover virtually anything that could even be remotely linked to the industry given the proper prompting. Also, I'd appreciate it if you could ease up on the language. The same goals can just as easily be accomplished, if not more so, with intelligent discourse as they can with profanity. As far as things stand now, the only available sources for this information are forum posts. The participants in these threads have no extended factual credibility beyond that of a bystander, to extrapolate any level of statistical value towards a trend in these numbers would be at best original research as I have already established below. I look forward to finding a workable solution to this issue, but unfortunately, as things stand now, there isn't a lot that can be done, especially with the sources provided. --Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 05:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New page for the Storyline summaries?

I think the story chapter summaries should be moved to a new page to allow more a more detailed..er.. encyclopediation (=p) of the game itself and not its story. Although I haven't a clue how to do that, or if I even should, so I'll leave it up to debate. -Zippy—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.15.94.131 (talk) 04:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

I agree, the stories that have happened and are happening are notable enough for their own wiki page. Something like, 'Events in The Matrix Online'. TotalTommyTerror 16:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

'Matrix Online Story Summary'? 'The Matrix Online Storyline'?--Viridis 20:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I would say.. "The Matrix Online (story)" or whatever you do with those kinds of articles, and mark it under the Matrix series. Let it be done (because I don't know how)! *thunder* --ZippydaSquirl 00:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I also agree, the page is mainly built up upon the story, i propose we make it it's own article 157.228.117.93 15:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Combat?

Someone who is familiar with this game needs to add an in-depth explanation of The Matrix Online's combat system, and how it varies from other MMORPGs. Dreamfall1028 05:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Weird dmoz.org references

Removed weird dmoz.org HTML comments hidden in the article Yahya 16:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LESIG

this whole section is full of original research and [[WP:NPOV|point of view issues. Nothing in the section is given a proper source. Until something is done to clean it up the OR tag needs to stay.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 18:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Problem is the original purpose of LESIG was cited in old interviews with Aether and Daniel "Walrus" Myers, but unfortunately, the websites that held such audio interviews are not active anymore, and the criticisms with LESIG is a consistent problem. It is common knowledge for the playerbase of The Matrix Online.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.85.234.166 (talk • contribs)
First, please sign your posts. Second, without the interviews or some other secondary source, it is still original research. Common knowledge doesn't really skate here. Until it can be verified its still OR.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 18:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

If you read my previous statement, there *WAS* a link. Unfortunately, the idiot administrators neglected the link period. As for the criticisms, it's common knowledge on the public forums.

With the acception of the bit about the change of LESIG duties (Which is lost due to the orginal information being removed from the web) all sources have been properly sighted and the OR tag should now be removed.

I think it's fairly obvious where the bias point of view of these new sections is coming from, i plan to clean up the LESIG sections to be more in line with encyclopedia standards as opposed to thinly guised forum ranting. --172.141.169.53 21:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Storyline Edits

I tried summarizing the storyline and then leaving the original live events (which I was going to shorten later), which cut down on the total length of that section. However, someone wants to discuss it first, so here we are.

Personally I think the summarization+ more edits to the live events to shorten them is what is needed; the game's story is what makes it unique so it should be a decent part of the page. -starofsports4

[edit] LESIG section removed.

Until verifiable sources are found for this section, it is unsourced and is unacceptable as a part of the article. It is a universal Wikipedia policy that forums constitute anecdotal testimony (i.e. primary sources and are unacceptable unless the post is made by someone of academic/journalistic recognition or official authority ( for example, an employee speaking in his/her capacity as an agent of Sony or monolith). Adding this back in, however well intended will constitute original research, and such conclusions utilizing primary sources must be derived by a verifiable and noteworthy secondary source qualified to dictate such findings. As such, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation," (WP:PROVEIT). I refer here to WP:Sources: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Citing forums also shears the article of any credibility per WP:NPOV as it is a guarantee that any users posting in these forums would have an agenda, which is clear by specific users attempts to prove their point in the editing of Wikipedia.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 20:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

To Oni: What would you sugest be used as a viable resource then, when it comes to citing references? The official forums [hereafter, DN1] continues to be the only actual consistent source of information when it comes to the game, and its criticisms. In a section regarding LESIG Critacisim, citing PUBLIC outcry on the offical forums would seem the logical step. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.59.2 (talk) 20:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Oni on this one, that entire section has always been plagued with vague opinionated forum styled rant debate, just give up and keep it to policy, thank you. --172.201.252.172 22:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Somehow I think you (66.192.59.2) don't understand. It does not matter if there are any better sources available or not we cannot use these sources. They are unacceptable per several wikipedia policies. Yeah it sucks, life sucks get over it and move on. If you want to change something take it to the guideline pages and try to institute a change there. Until the guidelines and policies change, this section breaks them quite directly and needs to be removed.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 02:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Agreed to a point. LESIG should be noted, but it doesn't need a big event with sources and comments and all that jazz. It is important to be made mention of since it does make this game unique in that sense, but nothing more then a few sentences is acceptable. Keep this to game dynamics, the story line (love the rumors :D ) and news+events and we're good. --~XHideoNinja 02:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree, LESIG should be mentioned but only to the extent that it exists and that it has a certain mission. Any commentary on whether or not it has accomplished that mission, how it performs, how people receive it, etc. requires a source far more reliable and verifiable than any of the sources produced insofar. --Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 04:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm new to the whole landscape of wikipedia, but what you're saying is that under a section called critisim, that a huge change to a main selling point of the game [In this case, Live Events, and the introduction of LESIG changing their planning/execution model], can't be spoken about because we don't have an "official source"? Again, I am new, but seeing as I'm willing to learn, please "oni" don't come back with a condecending attitude, it makes it difficult to discuss/learn. If the topic is critisim, wouldn't the direct input from a player of the game, count as an "offical" source? In my experience [I am one of the people that was referenced in the removed section, sourced multiple times even], it would make me a first hand source, and therefore considered reliable. Wiki rules may be different though, so let me know.NightTrace 21:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The change of live event format is already covered in criticisms and the decline of the original lesig group is set up nicely for someone to define the refinements made there in an earlier section. Covering things is fine as long as they're a) not blatant disgruntled opinion and b) back uped by valid sources. --172.143.134.64 17:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

First hand sources (also identified as primary sources, are considered less reliable, because they are difficult if not impossible to verify, and there is no limitation on them. The source does not have to be an expert, does not have to be reputable, and therefore is not subjected to academic scrutiny or peer review. News sources and academic papers are able to use primary sources since they can generally ascertain a higher level of accuracy and they are subject to professional scrutiny. I don't like where the policy leaves us, but it is a necessary one. Primary sources do not indicate any kind of trend. These outcries on forums could easily be a "vocal minority" and there would be no way of telling since the bulk of the user population is remaining silent. Even 50 users out of a few thousand would hardly mark the possibility of a trend and could not be noted as such without it being original research. Until this is reported on by a reputable journalistic or academic source, our hands are tied on the issue.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 21:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Righto, see this is why I never bothered to get involved with projects like this. In situations like this one...there ends up being no "authorized" source, and so you don't get the whole picture, oh well, I do still enjoy reading wiki, even if I don't agree with many of its smaller issues.NightTrace 19:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Clean-Up as of 26.10.2007

Readability and fluency of article improved.

Tense of "Notable Events" section adapted to the past tense as these are events which have already occurred.

Order of sub-sections re-grouped so that sub-sections which were previously scatterd across the page are now closer together.

New section named "Community and Player Base" added as this has been suggested as one of the most important aspected of the Matrix Online, and as such should help readers better understand it.

P.S Whoever has contributed to this article in the past has done an excellent job. Mostly restructuring so that those not familiar with the Matrix Online may better read its Wikipedia entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flr3364 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Severe problems

I removed controversial and negative claims about living people not supported by reliable sources.[1] Per WP:BLP, we are to remove such claims immediately. I removed the remainder of the criticism section as it has long been controversial and unsourced.[2] It is clearly a violation of verifiability, no original research and reliable sourcing requirements. I replaced the general cleanup tag with specific issues.[3] The article is unreferenced (WP:V), draws on the observations of editors (WP:NOR) and is written in a game-guide/fansite tone (WP:NOT and WP:FAN). This article has been tagged for cleanup for a long time and needs a merciless editing, along with multiple reliable references. Vassyana 10:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Finally someone else is willing to get their hands dirty. Perhaps maybe with your help these changes will stay instead of degrading into another endless revert war and grandstanding session.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 21:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Staffing and other changes

One thing that could be added to this article, although we'd have to be careful about opinion in it, is posting who the staff of MxO is. Recently the game went through a change in Community Relations, and that is relative to the game. There is a post on the forums by an administrator that explains the change, this should (although I'm not sure) count as a worthy source.

Also, nice to see work being done to clean it up; it may be easier to clean up current content on this page before (re)adding additional information. Storyline detail edits need to be the most careful, as this is a large part of what this game's community cares/debates about.Starofsports4 22:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Entirely too much exposition for a game nobody plays

This entry's game-plot/storyline is longer than the combined entries for the plot/storylines of all three movies. A few hundred fans of the game may care about its story, but this sort of overly detailed plot exposition doesn't belong in a Wikipedia article. Smells like fans trying to save a dying game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KymBarrett2 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, though before seeing this section I was going to suggest splitting it off into a separate article to satisfy those who disagree. I think we need a little more discussion and consensus before coming to a decision, however. --iTocapa t 00:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Honestly I don't there is any need to "satisfy" anyone who is not content with it. The cruft is barely (if at all) notable enough to be in this article. Never mind its own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oni Ookami Alfador (talk • contribs) 00:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think obvious personal bias against this (or any game for that matter) should be a motivator for any article changes. Villemar —Preceding comment was added at 07:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The obvious personal bias of a few overzealous gamers is the reason the article's so bloated with trivial data to begin with. I'm with Ookami, this game just plain isn't notable enough to warrant a chapter by chapter breakdown of its storyline. That's what fan sites are for. TGirl29 (talk) 20:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Just checked the World of Warcraft page out of curiosity, and even it doesn't have this much detailed story description. In fact it barely has any, and I don't think anyone can argue which of the two games is more notable. Also someone further up the page here brought this issue up already under 'generic story', why is this still being allowed?TGirl29 (talk) 20:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I play this game, I could care less that the huge exposition was taken out. That was an absolutely ridiculous story summary; most of the people that play the game couldn't tell you half of it. However, to kill the previous, argument, WoW barely has a story, while the Matrix Online's main content and selling point is the story. We don't need a 20 paragraph summary like before. A mention that there have been past live events, as well as a 4 sentence or so story summary, should suffice. I'd challenge one of you to do it, as I don't think any of you know anything about the game in the current state, besides that it is much weaker than World of Warcraft. Starofsports4 (talk) 22:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

To clarify my point above, I think the storyline section is very good now, it does, however, need the slightest mention of what has happened. Starofsports4 (talk) 22:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Just for clarification, the game's main selling point was not the story itself, but that the players would be shaping the story, which never happened. And WoW has plenty of story, enough to fill reams of Wikipages, it's just that it doesn't belong here in that great of detail. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a novel.TGirl29 (talk) 04:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, since there seems to be some rough consensus that this is well overdone, and that there has been no real objection to it, and pending the fact that no one with the adequate experience within the game has stepped forward to trim it down and keep whatever are the key points, I'm going to purge it.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 05:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Per the anon-IP user's objection in the page history of the main article... It doesn't matter. Its that simple. The story is WP:CRUFT, is a broken part of an already barely notable game , and the fact that something cannot be fixed, or that no one is willing to, does not mean you have to keep it in its current state. Sometimes broken things have to be thrown in the garbage.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 05:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Thought I'd just throw this in here as a fan and player of the game, that I liked coming to this page to reference certain aspects I may have forgotten about the game or its story. While there are certain aspects which certainly had little to do with the game and should have been done away with (i.e. the rumors section which included a nice little unnecessary paragraph about an unimportant player-liaison named TaeCross). But mostly what I'd like to say is that Wikipedia is an encycolopedia, and it is the duty of an encyclopedia to contain knowledge relevant to certain subjects, which is what I feel most of the deleted content was. What's the point in slimming it down, anyhow? If someone would like to learn about the game, they will be able to read as much as they like and learn as much as they like. If they don't want to learn about the game and its many story-based facets, why read the article to begin with? Put simply, a vast amount of knowledge is suprior to a lack of it, and I see no need to limit the content of the page. I'd ask that you restore it. Hell, I'd do it myself if I didn't believe you'd just reverse it in a milisecond. -Neoteny 70.44.74.185 (talk) 08:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I would agree with Neoteny. It is a good refresher, and whilst it's not supposed to be a novel, it is still necessary for one to understand what is happening. Extra knowledge is better than lack of it. Bring it back. -Bubz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.148.55.215 (talk) 09:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
This crap is not the "duty" of any encyclopedia. Your argument that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia is exactly WHY it shouldn't be included. Some level of restraint and notability has to be adhered to. WP:FICT goes over this. If someone were willing to take the time to actually edit the section, slim it down so its readable and not a long winded diatribe maybe it could be included but right now its so god awful excessive (its way the hell bigger than the rest of the article) the only reasonable solution is to nuke it off the page. As far as inclusion for the sake of inclusion, please see WP:NOT for the relevant sections on being a list of indiscriminate information.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 14:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that the content should be included in some capacity. Maybe not part of the explanation of the MMO game itself. That should just explain the game mechanics and references to other material. The story is valuable, for it is a continuation of the matrix universe. It should be placed on it's own outside of this page, or modified greatly to be included. However it has some value and should be used efficently. Wrath89 (talk) 19:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Its DEFINITELY not notable enough to get a whole separate page. As for including it here, time and time again its been stated that if someone with knowledge on the subject wanted to trim it down they could but no one bothered to step up. As bloated and useless as it is now it doesn't belong here.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 19:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Although the recent site addition was unneccesary, by now, I think it's hilarious that some of you care so much about pulling out pieces from "a game nobody plays." If it isn't important, why do you monitor this thing so much? I was almost ready to help out, but I think the actions by the people constantly removing things while not putting any effort to actually contribute themselves is an embarrassment. Starofsports4 (talk) 02:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
You're entitled to feel the way you do, but it doesn't change the fact that it is a useless addition that clutters up the article. There are rules that cover this. Read the following from WP:FICT:

Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot. A brief plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic.

Since there has been a demonstrated lack of self control in keeping said summary "brief," I don't think there's any hope for it. The lazy editors you should be focusing your complaints towards are the ones who could be working on it but choose instead to whine about it being taken out.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 20:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
The header says it all. Since the response to a supposed "bloated" storyline section was complete removal rather than revision, it's patently obvious that some people have a personal bias against the game, which I would guess haven't played the game. Anyone who has played the game understands that this game is heavily storyline-driven. No mention even of the intent of the creators of the Matrix Trilogy themselves that this is to be considered a continuation of the Matrix storyline! It's as if some random company (SOE) just got the franchise rights to a movie and based a game around it with no input from the creators. SOME form of storyline summation is helpful for people who want to know the basics about this game. That's the whole point of Wikipedia, no? Villemar —Preceding comment was added at 22:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Why don't you people take the advice and write a brief summary paragraph of the game's story? Ookami has tried several times to point you in that direction, and you continue to ignore him and complain. Nobody's trying to destroy your little game, they're just trying to maintain Wikipedia policy. Stop with the conspiracy theory crap. Also, don't overplay your hand, it doesn't help your case. A few gamers may have bought into that advertising gimmick about a 'continuing story', but nobody else did. In fact, there should be a disclaimer in the article that what was advertised and what came to be are two different things, otherwise the article is just plain misleading. There's a reason the hundreds of millions of Matrix fans aren't in here complaining that the story was removed.TGirl29 (talk) 08:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It's quite obvious that those of you who don't play the game, or just plain want to see the game fail, are the ones that are vehemently opposing the storyline section. You can NOT summarize the story of the Matrix Online in one paragraph. One paragraph for each chapter would be acceptable. It seems as if this Ookami person has something against the game, which you can tell by the way she constantly belittles it. The game continues to receive subscribers and content is constantly being added. A dying game would not receive the attention that it does from it's developers. As the storyline is a HUGE factor of the game, the summary of it should not have been deleted. As for whether or not you believe it's the 'continuing story', that's not up to you to decide. The W Brothers stated that the game was the continuation and the story canon. Period. Ookami is someone that probably had a bad experience in the game (perhaps banned or got butthurt about missing out on a reward) and wants to take out her hurt feelings the only way that she can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.65.56.200 (talk) 17:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This argument is futile, as is evident by the fact that you couple of fanboys have resorted to personal attacks against Ookami simply because you don't like WP or your arguments don't hold water or whatever. This time, I'M removing it, and will continue to do so until it meets the criteria set forth in WP:FICT, WP:CRUFT, and WP:NOT. Write a proper summary or leave it alone; repeatedly reverting under the pretense of 'doing it later' is fooling nobody.KymBarrett2 (talk) 03:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

i second the above —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.105.56.139 (talk) 10:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Full Disclosure

Since some people insist on making it an issue, though I'm not sure why, I'll discuss my involvements here. I have played the game. I do not play the game anymore. I harbor no negative feelings towards the game. Why did I leave? because I have only so much leisure time and I wanted to try out some other MMO games. Why am I so vehement about this? Well, that's going to require a nice numbered list.

  1. Wikipedia is full of crap like this.
  2. I am familiar with this game specifically (though not many of the more recent plot details) so I feel I can say without creative license that this section is excessive.
  3. The arguments for keeping it are frivolous. Nonsense or useless arguments equivalent to "its neat so it should stay," "other articles have sections this big," and "it's important" (no reasons are ever provided why the storyline, especially outlined in so much detail, is important to the article, only that it is. Prove don't assert.

--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 07:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)do not take away my latest change i am very familar with the matrix series and i would appreciate if you didnt erase my changes.

Dont erase my changes about matrix online! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.65.173.56 (talk) 16:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC) I said keep my changes alone. It is a spinoff like i wrote! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.65.173.56 (talk) 11:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC) If take away my changes one more time i will report it to wikipedia!!!!!!!!!

A SPINOFF?! The Matrix Online is a CONTINUATION of the Matrix saga, a bit like the Expanded Universe for Star Wars (though nowhere near as "expanded"). Even if you don' agree with this, there's no denying the fact that the Matrix Online is part of the Matrix franchise, AND the plot of the Matrix Online is not found anywhere else. Therefore it's a SEPARATE piece of work, UNLIKE the Star Wars Expanded Universe, which is a COLLECTION of works. I believe that the plot SHOULD be mentioned somewhere, and if it cannot be mentioned on Wikipedia a link to an external site should be provided. Wikipedia aims to be COMPLETE, so there's no reason why something as simple as an external link can't be provided if the information.

By the way, don't report people unless a) you're sure that you're right and b) the problem cannot be resolved otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vistafreak (talk • contribs) 10:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "official", "canon", etc?

I'm not ready to 'be bold', but obviously someone keeps trying to alter it and its always confused me anyway, so why is it in the article? I've played this game, and a few players keep claiming the Wachowskis are approving the story, but they can't provide any proof. The brothers aren't speaking for themselves, its not in the press releases, googling doesn't give any credible sources, and message boards aren't exactly WP:RS, it seems like this was just deduced from an ad that sort of implied it, but never actually said it, can anyone source these claims? TGirl29 (talk) 10:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC) I agree with you. Matrix Online is based on the matrix storyline nothing more. The movies stands for themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.65.173.56 (talk) 10:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Joel Silver said it on the Matrix Revolutions DVD. Check the second disc and go to "Future Gamer: The Matrix Online."64.85.234.166 (talk) 11:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I want it said by the Warcowski brothers or else i dont belive it and i am going to countinue my Edit war! PS why couldn,t you link me to that joel silver interview? The matrix series are over appcept it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.65.173.56 (talk) 16:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It's on the freaking Matrix Revolutions DVD you moron. I already told you to check it. 64.85.234.166 (talk) 22:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC) I want it by the creators of the whole matrix universe the warcowski brothers before i beleive it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.65.173.56 (talk) 07:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Wachowski Brothers weren't interested in interviews when they filmed the movie sequels and had Joel Silver do the talking for them. Good God, are you just some twelve year-old retard?Dibol (talk) 07:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Taken completely by IGN's interview in a conversation between Paul Chadwick and Wachowski Brothers:

Paul Chadwick: Is it difficult, after meticulously crafting the Matrix films shot by shot, to subject your child to the vagaries of a MMO, where unpredictable player behavior is the rule?

The Wachowski Brothers: The "vagaries of an MMO where unpredictable player behavior is the rule," is the reason for doing it. Our films were never intended for a passive audience. There are enough of those kinds of films being made. We wanted our audience to have to work, to have to think, to have to actually participate in order to enjoy them. This may be because while we enjoy movies, we also spend a lot of time (as in crack-den amounts of time) gaming.

Gaming engages your mind actively whereas most genre films (the films we tend to watch) are designed to provoke as little thinking as possible. Consider why the films in which everyone knows exactly what is going to happen are the films that make the most money.

Yet the fact that the Matrix films are three of the most successful adult films in history (despite of what much of the media would have us believe), suggests that there are other people like us. Those are the people, the people who thought about it, who worked at it, who we ultimately made the trilogy for and it now makes perfect sense to us that they should inherit the storyline. For us, the idea of watching our baby evolve inside the virtual bubble-world of this new radically developing medium, which has in our opinion the potential of combining the best attributes of films and games, of synthesizing reality TV with soap opera, RPGs and Mortal Combat, is fantastically exciting.

Link: http://pc.ign.com/articles/603/603274p1.html

Dibol (talk) 07:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I read the whole page idiot and i didn,t see anything that would say it is a offical countiuation! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.236.223.107 (talk) 08:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It's canon.

News articles written prior to MxO's release:

"It's specifically designed to carry on the franchise", says Jason Hall, senior VP of Warner Bros. Interactive. "What happens in The Matrix Online is considered canon for the property." By creating a haven for Matrix believers, it's clear the Wachowskis will either ensure the survival of their franchise, or surrender Zion once and for all. http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,735572,00.html


Comics writer Paul Chadwick was hand-picked by the Wachowski Brothers to write the storylines for the first year of the game (at least five years are planned), which will be told through everything from cinematics that are available to all players, to in-game events, and even appearances inside the Matrix by characters from the films (featuring the original actors' voices). And everything that takes place within the game is considered official canon for the ongoing Matrix saga.

http://www.infuzemag.com/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=3077

Asking for confirmation by the Wachowski Brothers is beating a dead horse. As the writers and directors of the franchise, they never wanted to do interviews since they filmed the fucking sequels. Dibol (talk) 09:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The Warcowski brothers give interwievs trust me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.65.173.56 (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

They didn't want to give any further interviews regarding the Matrix franchise.Dibol (talk) 17:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

All of the sources you quoted also contain a lot of quotes and info about the game that are clearly not the case, especially concerning the storyline; you can't pick and choose what to quote from your source and pretend the rest doesn't exist. If your sources are loaded with things that are incorrect, than the source as a whole fails WP:RS, and your particular sources are just wishlist-hype as a result. Heck the Wachoski interview you quoted here contradicts what's in the game, 'players inheriting the storyline', 'unpredictable player behavior is the rule', etc. Anyone who's actually played this game knows all of that is incorrect. To address your other sources specifically, I've seen the Future Gaming piece before (I have the DVD as well), and nobody including Joel Silver specifically says 'Matrix Online is canon'; what a viewer infers is not a source. The Infuze line you cited is op-ed, not a quote, so its irrelevant. And beside the fact that Sony runs the game now, the Warner Interactive quote "What happens in The Matrix Online is considered canon for the property" is a slightly ambiguous choice of words, and it can't be taken at face value, otherwise snowball hurling yetis are canon, Halloween zombies are canon, etc. It doesn't matter what the players think, you can't pick and choose what's canon, either its canon or it isn't. TGirl29 (talk) 11:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

otherwise snowball hurling yetis are canon, Halloween zombies are canon, etc. It doesn't matter what the players think, you can't pick and choose what's canon, either its canon or it isn't.

The Halloween and Christmas events are for the sake of PLAYER ENJOYMENT. It's easy to dismiss the event as non-canon because it's not part o the official story. These things are just for the sake of enjoying the game while Halloween and Christmas are available. Dibol (talk) 21:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

like i said before i agree with you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.65.173.56 (talk) 13:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I happen to know that this issue comes up on the Matrix Online message board, but this isn't that message board, and here fanboys can't trickle in to win a debate with demagoguery and assumptions. In Wikipedia you have to actually prove your case, and nobody's ever actually done that with this issue, that's why I brought it up. So again, you don't get to pick and choose what is and isn't canon, either it is or it isn't.TGirl29 (talk) 03:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Side events such as Smith Anniversary, Blue Sky, Halloween, and Christmas had no bearing on the plot whatsoever. Why? Critical missions never make such references to it. It's just a damn video game, and certain elements are in it for the players to enjoy while it's still up despite how out-of-place said events are. Choices & Consequences, an original LET-only event was dropped because SOE's management created too many continuity errors due to the merging of nine servers into three, and Walrus said it got axed because of that fact considering all nine servers had different outcomes. Only things considered canon are the 95% of the Live Events and Critical missions, that's it. Dibol (talk) 07:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

What data exists that could be loosely called 'official' contradicts that, but then it contradicts itself half the time too. Regardless, player consensus is not a reliable source, and the players can't even agree on what's canon and what isn't. Why should it be presented here as though it wasn't an issue? Bottom line, it can't be verified, so it shouldn't be here, or it should at least be qualified so as not to mislead people.TGirl29 (talk) 07:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Plot summary

Many people (including me) have added the plot summary to the page, but it got deleted multiple times. Instead of keep adding it back every time, I suggest we make a new page for the summary, because it's just UNFAIR that the movies and the other games get summaries while the Matrix Online doesn't. Especially since it concerns the future of the Matrix series. Or we can find a link to an external page that summarizes everything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vistafreak (talk • contribs) 11:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with you on this Vista. I've been reading the plot summaries for each chapter carefully and it's just outright impossible to condense each chapter into two or three paragraphs due to how the Live Events and critical missions are tied together now that Rarebit is in charge of that department. The new page was suggested by someone else in the past, but Oni apparently said game's story is not notable enough for another page detailing the storyline. Linking fan-sites for giving the 411 on the story wont help considering the admin running their sites have had real life things to do, which meant that they only had the story events from the time the game was under Monolith's management. Dibol (talk) 21:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Why the hell did you create a new section on this? It's already being discussed above (well it had been resolved until more people felt the need to commence whining about it). Any particular reason you just can't leave it a part of that discussion? Also, keep in mind that none of it is SOURCED either, which the entire thing would need to be given the fleeting nature of a live events storyline. Simply citing the game won't do since starting to play the game now would give one essentially no information on previous plotlines. The whole thing is just the result of innane fanboy blathering because people can't grow up and deal with the fact that no one cares about their favorite game, especially not enough to give it a plot section longer than a novella.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 10:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Editors, please, keep it civil. Also adding the story line without any sourced information and based on original research is unacceptable under Wikipedia policy. Janus8463 (talk) 03:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
It is absolutely crystal clear that Obi has a personal Jihad against this game for whatever reason. So I'm sure if we got the W Bros themselves to come on this site and/or hold an international press conference saying that yes, indeed, the Matrix Online is a continuation of the Matrix storyline; Obi and his henchmen (or his proxy alts) would still continue to parse and cajole and try to undermine this page six ways to Sunday. The fact is that this MMO is STORYLINE DRIVEN therefore SOME storyline summation is critical to the understanding of this game. Not even for current players but for those who want to look into the complete Matrix storyline. The storyline (at least from Chapters 1-10 have been written by Paul Chadwick at the behest of the W Brothers, with the brothers having a basic editorial/supervisory position on this story. SOE just can't fire Ben Chaimberlain and Paul Chadwick and hire some random guy to write whatever he wants; like having Neo and Smith return and allowing elves and unicorns into the game. It is what it is whether you like it or not. The bottom line is that we need SOMETHING here even if Obi or others have a personal vendetta against this WACHOWSKI BROTHERS APPROVED STORYLINE-DRIVEN game. Villemar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.107.58.131 (talk) 21:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
What source are you wanting us to use? As far as I know, besides story summaries that began only in the past few chapters, there isn't a "official" place where the story is completely written out. The best we can probably do for at least old live events is to link to the event summaries off the old website and make our own summary. Starofsports4 (talk) 19:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Make our own summary? Have you even read WP:NOR? No synthesis from primary sources is allowed. If we want to be able to create a plot summary for this page, we need to be able to cite each part of it to a place people can actually go to and look it up. It is a particular challenge for MMOs with live events plots. For a normal game we could cite a particular level, or time frame in the progress of the game. For an MMO, there is no such thing. No one can exactly pop the game in and find out what happened in chapter x.xx six and a half months ago.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 05:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
In regards to anon IP 68.107.58.131's comments accusing me of some sort of vendetta, please see the full disclosure section that a certain editorial juggernaut felt the need to remove without actually paying attention above. I have no problem with MxO. I played it, I liked it, other things came along, I moved on. I have no problem with monolith, I have problem with SOE, and I have no problem with the matrix franchise as as a whole. I'll forgive the constant misspelling of my name because there appears to be some literacy issue going on. Especially considering that no one here is either willing or capable of creating a concise, cited, summary of the storyline. Instead because it's "important" to the delusions of the fanbase that the game be recognized as more than the failure-to-market that it is you constantly revert (and if I had to guess I'd surmise sock puppetry is playing a roll in it as well since people conveniently "forget" to log in) to a plot summary that breaks at least 4 major policies/guidelines of Wikipedia. 1 2 3 4--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 20:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

As much as I don't agree with Wikipedia's policies, Oni has a point. I am in a similar position as him in terms of loving the game and hating SOE, and am one of the people that had an edit war over sometime during the past year over keeping the thing up only to realize this will be a repeated cycle as long as Wikipedia exists. MxO is a unique case considering that it's not covered as extensively to the public and is the only first game to integrate a continuous "organic" storyline unlike previous MMORPGS. He brought up a good point about not being able to cite MMORPGs properly considering that the game constantly changes over time and that the thing isn't divided into missions. As it stands, MxO's story is just too damn large to condense, and I've read the thing carefully paragraph by paragraph. I'm all for creating a new page to summarize the game's story, but due to MxO's obscure nature no thanks to SOE's management, it's just not feasible whatsoever, resulting in unnecessary censoring just because Wikipedia's questionable policy says so. Only way to actually resolve/change how things are posted on MxO's wiki page it is to bring it up on the Video Game projects page. Sure, we might get the same answer, but it sure beats having a dozen accounts closed for edit-warring on something no one can ever agree on compromising.Dibol (talk) 02:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)