Talk:Mass Effect (video game)

Soldier Classes

With the latest EGM magazine out, I think there are three classes now: Soldier (already mentioned), Biotic (the one who controls dark matter), and Tech (instead of engineer).

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)

Awards?

Is it of value to the article to continue to retain information about ME's E3-2006 awards and also information about the various award nominations (vs. wins)? cheers, --guyzero | talk 18:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Take pages like Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion and Shadow of the Colossus, they don't list every win and nomination, just the wins and the most important ones because along with the page theres a citation for a complete list of awards EG in Oblivion's in the intro it says it won numberous awards followed by a refference to the whole list. Stabby Joe (talk) 18:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I've made an edit [1] to remove most E3-2006 awards (with the exception of the Game Critics Award) and all of the nominations in an effort to tighten up the article. Please feel free to revert if you feel that the article is better with this information intact. cheers, --guyzero | talk 06:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

specialization classes

And may I please ask where specialization classes??? This article is not very well put together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LaBarge (talk • contribs) 00:58, January 9, 2008

As someone else would have eventually pointed out, this isn't a game guide and information like that was included in the early days of the article, but was subsequently removed due to Wiki policy violation (or the anal retentive interpretation thereof). This article, overpoliced or not, is put together well by any standard. It may not be the way you way you want it to be put together and therein lies the rub. There is a difference between your aesthetic opinion and actual fact. (144.92.84.206 (talk) 20:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC))

i've had thoughts of the like, not so far as bad just could be better. specialization classes are part of the game its not a gmae gide to say "at this point the players defoult class (vangard adept ect.) is changed to one of two choises depending on the orignal class. its not being a gide just being a complete article. we cant wittle down all the infomation here, saying its giving a gide of how to play the game. i have never seen it reach this point, so putting in that the players class can change is ok, just don't say where and what unless giving examples. (58.109.62.151 (talk) 23:37, 10 January 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)

Development section missing

It's early days yet (in terms of distance to GA), but a good gaming article should have a development section. Chensiyuan (talk) 02:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge Citadel Station

Citadel Station (Mass Effect) should be merged here. It's not notable enough for a separate article, per Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), and mainly rehashes the plot, which could be covered here instead. Pagrashtak 18:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The page just redirects to here now, so I'm going to remove the template. --Asclepius ^{Dices mihi} 20:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Sex

Found this on Penny Arcade - http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/KevinMcCullough/2008/01/13/the_sex-box_race_for_president?page=full&comments=true 67.81.60.34 (talk) 03:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, there is no controversy, it's just one misinformed hack on one site that has mistaken Mass Effect for Second Life (probably would have helped if either he or one of his aides had bothered to play the game but I digress). Everything he describes is Second Life and none of it is even remotely close to Mass Effect's gameplay. He and his people should read the Wiki article on "defamation" and the sub-section on libel. Mr. McCullough is attempting to use a video game to generate controversy (and more to the point, transparently promote himself AND his book) for his own financial gain. Someone should tell him that Hillary has already been there, done that with the "Hot Coffee" ridiculousness (which is funny/ironic given his particular ideology). (76.201.154.234 (talk) 04:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC))

Thanks for clearing that up. I read the article and I knew it didn't sound like Mass Effect. Him mistaking it for SL makes sense. Thanks. 67.81.60.34 (talk) 04:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should add this note into the article? The McCullough article has gotten pretty widespread links, and I imagine lots of people (like me) will want to read about Mass Effect on wikipedia -- and then they will be (like me) confused by the lack of sex. (Not that I'm not often confused by the lack of -- oh, nevermind...) I don't want to add it without getting some consensus, though... Deltopia (talk) 11:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

And give this guy even more free publicity? I don't think so. If his "review" (and I use that word in the loosest sense possible) had even been in the slightest bit about Mass Effect, it might have warranted mention but his description is clearly Second Life and not Mass Effect. Yes, there has been discussion about it (that's how the internet works and more to the point, why this page exists) but it's still one minor, politically biased webpage with a erroneous "review" that was clearly about a different game and not really even about the game so much as a chance to rant about values in America. Till we see it on major media outlets and/or websites, I say it's no different than any other random guy who puts up a completely wrong "review" on his personal blog. (144.92.84.206 (talk) 13:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC))

I say leave it out. The game he's describing clearly isn't Mass Effect and if he'd played it at all he'd know that. He's just another random yahoo getting on his soapbox for 5 minutes of fame. Petrarch 20:50, 15 January 2008 (GMT)

Seconding both Petrarch's and 144.92.84.206's opinions on this. Barely relevant to Mass Effect in the first place. Peptuck (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Fourthing that opinion, I already removed this from the article when somebody added it. If this becomes a bigger deal then I would support adding a section explaining his mistake if sources could be found. Mad031683 (talk) 23:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

McCullough added a follow-up piece defending himself yesterday, which was later edited earlier today, presumably to add a link to another follow up from today. He confirms that it is Mass Effect he's seen (including providing links to YouTube search results, rather than specific videos), but to me, most of the things he says are still clearly false, and have been rebutted by multiple sources. He also goes out of his way to insult the videogame community at large on multiple occasions.
As it happens, this does appear to be getting quite a bit of coverage from the specialist games press... is there any coverage from the mainstream media? Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 16:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Not that I've seen but then again, the only thing anyone is reporting is that he is completely incorrect in his description of the gameplay, that he admitted his review is based solely on a couple of minutes of YouTube video and that he has a politically (and probably financially) motivated axe to grind. Not really a legitimate story when the facts at the heart of it are flat out wrong because no one involved with the review actually played the game. For the more, "major" media outlets, there might also be a small concern about libel and the lawsuit that could follow. More likely, it's simply not on par with Iraq and the primaries. 144.92.84.206 (talk) 20:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

put in in or give him crediblity. if it isn't in here we are not giving infomation to people, and thats the point right? just say somthing along the like of: there was confustion and contreversy raised over the minimal nudity in the sex related segments of the game. this was due to >insert name or alias to avoid giving him waht he wants<"s msataking ms=asss effect for the poular MMORPG seccond life. Well you get the idear, it is a question that needs answers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.236.249.164 (talk) 11:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

First, not sure how much credibility he has and not really interested in having a protracted discussion about what the difference is between a "real" journalist and a political hack with a blog. When we are talking about people who write articles about video games, it's murky enough as it is.

Second, people are getting the information on the Mass Effect forums and other places, including this page right here and will be just as informed. If we put in every thing said by anyone on the internet that even remotely relates to Mass Effect, the article would become insanely large and wouldn't benefit in the slightest. The article is fine the way it stands and doesn't need an addition about how some guy wrote a "review" about a game based on a YouTube clip and was subsequently wrong in all the essential details about the game. He apologized for not doing his homework, his article was poorly sourced (to say the least), and it's now a moot point.

Third, the major media never picked it up (with good reason) and it was never a controversy except to the people that would have benefited from it being a controversy. Why do you think they start these kinds of things to begin with? They aren't protecting anyone, they are trying to get their name in the press and sell something (either getting elected or selling books or generating hits on their website). It's all about the publicity and money, nothing more, and both "sides" do it.

The answer was and still is, "No, we don't need to put this in the main article." Putting in a section about how one minor "journalist" (and I use that term in the most liberal definition, pun intended) had a completely wrong review is not notable (see relevant Wiki policy) nor really even logical. 70.226.175.7 (talk) 16:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't even matter anymore. The original article is gone. --Scorp Stanton (talk) 02:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree. Since major media did not pick it up I don't think it is necessary. Even if they had, I would have recommended waiting several months for things to cool down before putting it in. This would be to temper any benefit that Mr. McCullough might hope to gain from it. Nothing really ever happened, so it is not important. As ScorpsSt said, the article has been pulled, So it was, and still is a non issue.65.165.240.65 (talk) 18:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Foxnews picked it up.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YEzRJ5ojtg god I hate them.. 90.148.96.21 (talk) 13:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Sex Controversy and Fox News

I know that there's a section for this at the bottom of the page, but this is newish and that's oldish. Anyway, should there be a section about Fox's wildly innacurate report on the sex scene in this game, and EA's letter rebuttal? 67.204.195.235 (talk) 02:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

ok screw it. put in a 1-2 line metion but dont go into depth of any one even

I'm on the fence now. The criteria was if major news picked it up, BUT it does seem like the media (especially FOX) are not only late coming to the party (the article was out a week ago, the game has been out for two months) but were just as inaccurate in their discussion of the game. http://kotaku.com/348187/ea-calls-fox-out-on-insulting-mass-effect-inaccuracies is the link to EA's reaction (the Microsoft press release was pretty lame) to this nonsense.

I dunno. The only reason it's become a thing is because the people involved not only don't know what the hell they are talking about, but eagerly admit they haven't even played the game. The FOX news anchor said she just looked at some video clips to prepare for the story, very professional. They certainly didn't just hire her for her looks. I'm glad journalism isn't about "reading the book" or even reading the book's cliffnotes anymore, but reading someone else's review of the book cover and then talking about it as if all the facts are in. That's either lazy or criminal, I'm not sure which.

Were I in charge of the segment I saw on FOX about Mass Effect, I'd be worried that not only were we way deep in the weeds of what borders on slander, I'd be embarassed as a news provider that I couldn't be bothered to ask one 19 year old intern to go play the game over the weekend and bring back some footage and some notes so the lead journalist had the relevant background before going on air and looking like a fool. All they had to do was talk to a handful of gamers that played the game for ten minutes and would have had a much better understanding than reading one blog and watching some YouTube and calling that research. And consider this, if this had been about anything other than a video game, if they had run a story on a person with that much error, there'd be a lawsuit.

Anyway, if we do put in something about all this, it either needs it's own article or there needs to be more than just two lines. IF we write anything about this (IF being the keyword), it should be comprehensive in details but also explain how we got here. The controversy is coming months after release (which is suspect), is largely being created by people with a vested interest (television programming is losing out to video games), AND are either grossly (and some might say negligently and unprofessionally) misinformed/misrepresenting the facts or are deliberately lying about the content of the game. 144.92.84.206 (talk) 14:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I just believe that the sex Controversy section needs to be rewritten. It is too opinionated in some parts towards one side as well as there was more than just what was listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.33.220.124 (talk) 22:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

"It is noteworthy that the game hardly pushed boundaries with sex in game. A PC game released in the same period The Witcher, contained a multitude greater explicit sexuality, but did not receive nearly as much public backlash. Incidents with Mass Effect are likely just a case of moral panic, due to the high popularity of the game and the fact that layman media pay more attention to console platforms than they do to PC gaming."

who ever put that in is wrong, Mass Effect and The Witcher are both about as popular world wide, Mass Effect was just more popular in a conversative country like the US than The Witcher was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.209.233.100 (talk) 22:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Should we add FOX inviting EA, BioWare and Microsoft to the show?--User:NFAN3|NFAN3 (talk) 23:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Voice of Sovereign

Does anyone know who did the voice for Sovereign? It doesn't appear to be in the credits, or listed here or on IMDB. Mloren (talk) 11:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I've not found any specific mention of who does that voice so far. I'm guessing it was listed as an additional voice given the small speaking role it had, which could make it any one of about 70 people. It does have a passing resemblance to Wrex's voice in some ways if you listen closely enough, but it could just easily be any of the others in the cast list. Petrarch 19:17, 01 February 2008 (GMT)

I thought Sovereign sounded like the actor from the Matrix Sequels, Helmut Bakaitis (The Architect) which would be very appropriate given the character. I was also curious as to who the voice of Vigil was (sounded a little like Keifer Sutherland but I could be wrong, I've searched but didn't find anything definitive on cast for either role).144.92.85.41 (talk) 21:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight

At the moment the s controversy is really getting out of hand. How can the section form such a large part of the article? It's becoming a platform to ridicule the already ridiculous "journalists" in question and reads nothing like an encyclopedia. In the scheme of things the whole incident's nothing terribly important insofar as WP is concerned. Chensiyuan (talk) 01:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It seems contain POV and chunks remain unsourced. --guyzero | talk 02:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Cybercast's article did not receive the attention of the Fox news report (beyond Kotaku.) It appears to be included to just add unnecessary additional detail to this section. I have cropped this article from the section. Re-add if there is additional information/sources that suggests cybercast's article on mass effect is noteworthy beyond kotaku/diggs's mention of it. cheers, --guyzero | talk 03:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Both contoversy sections should be merged and the sex scene bit needs to be toned down. The Fox News piece should be mentioned, but it should not be so large a part of the article. It should be presented as "This is what happened, how it happened and why." I have a serious problem with those who use wikipedia as a soapbox for voicing their bias. Present the facts, both sides of the story, and let the reader decide what view to take. This is how you disseminate information to the masses. You do it fairly. This is all common sense. I stick with my prior conviction that if it must be added, do so after things blow over. This is all too fresh in peoples hearts and minds, and most are saying ridiculous things by letting their anger get the best of them. -Jacob 65.165.240.65 (talk) 17:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

If it were just a controversy that might be true, but this is about deliberately falsifying or at least grossly misrepresenting the truth in a news story. Love them or hate them, FOX is considered a profesional, legitimate source of news and they had an obligation (just like all journalists and news providers do) to present the information impartially and accurately. Right out of the gate, their tag for that segment was Sexbox, Full nudity etc. That outrage isn't just that a game got slandered, but that a major news outlet so badly researched the issue and then allowed discussion of the issue with the same bad information being presented as established fact.

Consider this, if we applied the standards and policies that Wikipedia has for articles against that news segment, what would be the end result? Or put another way, if we took their approach on that segment to an article, would that article stand with only a controversial tag or would it have to be completely rewritten? There would be eight kinds of editor outcry about bias, lack of sources, the real possibility of the article being legally actionable, and so on. Nobody would be saying, it's not that big of a deal.

Watch the video past the interview and you can tell not a single person in that following roundtable discussion had even heard of Mass Effect before that day and most certainly didn't bother to do any real research. The discussion itself was brief to the point of absurdity. Why bother to have a roundtable if the people involved aren't going to have a chance to discuss the issue at length AND clearly don't know what they are debating aside from the old chestnuts of Free Speech, Free Choice, Good of society, moral responsibility, etc.

No one beside Geoff had even bothered to talk to the makers of the game, play the game, talk to people who had played the game, and so on. He was the only informed person on the subject and that's beyond ridiculous to the point of being offensive. At the very, very least, the journalist "moderating" the interview should have done her homework but freely admitted that she had just watched some video.

In my opinion, I think she knew she was discussing an issue she shouldn't without having more background and I could see that she felt she was a little out of her depth or more likely, felt this segment wasn't really worthy of news. FOX was most likely using this as some kind of filler segment but that doesn't justify putting a completely erroneous segment on air and hoping they were right.

If this had been about a person and they had gotten there facts so badly distorted, there would already have been an apology and/or a lawsuit. Instead, it's a video game so no one thinks that's merits importance outside of the gamer community.

Except, truth is not a luxury and we depend on the news media to try and give us the best information possible. I'm not so foolish as to think they won't get things wrong or be biased, but they still have a professional obligation to do the best they can and make sure they have their facts straight. This game hadn't just come out the week before, it wasn't some breaking development, it had been out for a couple of months and no other major media outlet had made so much as a whisper about the sex in the game before their segment aired. Even their own tech review guy who played it back in December gave it a glowing review and never mentioned anything about full frontal nudity or multiple sex scenes.

They could have used their own game review as research or even better, the actual person who wrote the review and played the game could have been in on the roundtable so that at least one person from FOX had the information they needed. Instead, they went with a few video clips as background and proceeded to attack something that they knew almost nothing about. (Don't even get me started on how underqualified Cooper is). There's no excuse for what happened.

FOX was negligent, reckless, and lazy in their coverage of the game and did in fact commit slander against the game, the company, and all the people who put effort into making the game. It wasn't an accident or oversight, it was about being completely, avoidably wrong and then not owning up to it when they found out how off the mark they were. If nothing else, they should have apologized and somebody should have gotten suspended to demonstrate they care about getting the story right and being as fair and honest in conveying the facts as they claim to be.

Truth isn't relative to the importance of the subject matter. We shouldn't dismiss it because it's lie about something we don't care about, coming from people whose central job is about getting the truth to us. That's why this has weight and merit. 144.92.84.206 (talk) 21:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately the whole basis of your argument as to why this should be included so extensively in an encyclopedia does not stand to scrutiny, and does not comport with the core policies of this encyclopedia. Like it or not, Wikipedia does not even attach a premium to truth to begin with, whereas weight is irrefutably a longstanding official policy. In any case, I'm not saying let's delete this whole controversy section, I'm just saying: (a) let the facts speak for themselves and avoid the POV commentary; and (b) keep it concise and weighted relative to main subject, i.e. the game. Chensiyuan (talk) 00:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Does not stand to scrutiny? I just love being condescended to in a subtle, overly simplistic way, makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Nice use of the word, "comport" by the way.

What's truly unfortunate here is that your position is Wikipedia doesn't attach a premium to truth. When I use the word "truth" I mean accurate information. I don't have the anal retentive nature that some do in attaching absolute literal meaning to words and rely more on the context of what is being expressed. But let's say you are right and Wikipedia doesn't really care about any of that.

So we can make things up in an article as long as we have sources for it? We can write entire sections based on erroneous sources so long as we can cite those sources AND don't make the article too big? Your position is that getting the information correct is not policy but not giving undue weight is and THAT'S what's important?

Your argument is the one that does not hold up, sir. "Verifiable" may not mean true in the literal sense, but I'm guessing most (if not all) of the people who contribute here would like the information to be accurate. To me, that's kind of a common sense thing and shouldn't need to be codified as policy but I realize for every three people (like myself) that feels some things don't need to be spelled out, there is going to be one retentive literary lawyer who wants and needs to argue the semantic nuance of every policy, line, and comma placement in any and all articles that appear in "their" Wikipedia. Information that's well sourced but ultimately false is not going to be of any use to anyone no matter how brief or without undue weight it is and I believe that's a given. I shouldn't have to use policy to prove that.

As for weight, this game is at the center of something that has continued to grow and has had far reaching consequences, particular for the gaming community, Ms. Lawrence, FOX, and the integrity of news media coverage as a whole. When I last checked, none of this was being addressed in the FOX Live Desk article, video game controversies article, or anywhere else which is fine as long as it has some presence in the Mass Effect article, which is the game at the heart of the issue.

It doesn't need to be a huge section, I agree with that, but it does need to be specific in what happened and the ensuing aftermath. IF that requires a fair amount of space, then so be it. Better to have the relevant facts in a well written section then write a brief, bare bones section that leads to unnecessary interpretation and confusion by the reader.

(After reading your personal page, I see you are conservative and take issue with homosexuality, which is not a part of this game but some believe it is because of the asari/female shep. romance. I would further guess you probably like FOX news. I hope your not letting your bias get the better of you and that's where all this undue weight nonsense is coming from.) 75.42.235.162 (talk) 01:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

If indeed my bias is affecting my views here, then surely I would be the first to decimate ME to the ground for having a scene suggestive of homosexuality. Instead, I have argued from core policies of this encyclopedia, and no, I don't live in a country where I can watch FOX news, so I don't know a thing about FOX or care either. You may call undue weight nonsense, but so far all your rhetoric weigh hollow, and it is so painfully obvious. Chensiyuan (talk) 03:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

So at last count we have Guyzero, Jacob and Chensiyuan opposing the inclusion of this FOX news thing. On the other side we've got the anon IP user. I'm going to enter the mix now and make it 4 to 1 and say, this is really stupid. Can you *honestly* say the section reads like an *encyclopedia* now? Common sense please. And mister anon, stop laying your insecurities bare for a global audience. Maybe that's why you hide as an anon! Manderiko (talk) 03:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey. I rewrote the section, cited the New York Times multiple times, and removed the tone and cleanup notes. I have no strong feelings about the section, but it looks pretty good as it is now and is an adequate way of mentioning what we probably should, namely the hot lesbian rishathra. Oh, and don't diss anons more than is necessary, I've seen them blow veterans out of the water. Thanks, Kizor 00:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course, it's always better to lose a veteran =) On a serious note, yes thanks for cleaning up the tone. I'm still not convinced we need that amount of detail. Three paras tops for me. Chensiyuan (talk) 01:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Uhm, when did this become a show of hands? Wikipedia isn't a committee. And the controversy just keeps on going so it's an issue, it's of note, it deserves to be addressed in the article, my insecurities have nothing to do with this article and you need to fuck off with that kind of nonsense and especially the holier than thou nonsense of "does it look like real encyclopedia?". Since when is that a criteria here? It's an article about a video game. How many "real" encyclopedias devote space to video games? This is Wikipedia where everything and anything of note is addressed at probably far too much length. And then, joy of joys, argued over by people who think this is somehow an ownership issue because they spend far too much time here nitpicking and that somehow entitles them to praise and deference.

And no, I don't have to be polite, other people made this personal before I did and I have a right to express my discontent. Quote whatever you like, but I don't need your permission to write what I think.

As for anon, it's because the computer I am working from is work related and it would be a pain to log in every time I have a response. I have more important things to do. 144.92.84.206 (talk) 22:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for resorting to foul language and name-calling to make your claims. Nobody on this talkpage supports a thing you say, so I'd just report your uncivil behaviour and delete the content that clearly has no purpose on this encyclopedia. Bye. Chensiyuan (talk) 12:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

"And no, I don't have to be polite, other people made this personal before I did and I have a right to express my discontent. Quote whatever you like, but I don't need your permission to write what I think."

WP:CIVIL says otherwise. Peptuck (talk) 17:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

"Sorry to correct your misinformation, but its not only been restricted to blogs. Among other sites, it had been reported in Gamasutra (the number one website for game developers) News.com.au (the number one news site of the country and continent of Australia), parodied on Penny Arcade, among others. Its even been so bad he had to retract his statement. To not even have a single mention in is erring too much in the other extreme. ~ (talk) 9:18, 8 February 2008 (GMT +8)

There is no misinformation --- lets just focus on the content. If we don't have the sources, we don't have verifiability. Please correct the article to provide the Gamasutra and News.com.au citations. Things that are only sourced by blogs or CNS or McCullough (selfpub, self generating controversy) should be cut. --guyzero | talk 01:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The article from news.com.au is already in the article, but I'll include it here as well . Can't seem to locate the gamasutra article since it was quite a while back (maybe I did remember incorrectly on that one source), but a search on Google easily provides additional news/non-blog sources as well such as Gamepolitics.com which is owned by the ECA, or Entertainment Consumers Association. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhanzhao (talk • contribs) 15:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Sales Controversies

Don't you think we should remove the Sales Controversies.. category? It's not really a big deal. A rumor about Kmart and Kmart saying there is no Mass Effect out yet. So what?--71.72.82.183 (talk) 05:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

This sounds familiar, doesn't it. I won't object to its removal. Chensiyuan (talk) 06:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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). - 144.92.84.206 (talk) 19:51, 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)