Talk:RuneScape

Controversies, legal battles, major expansions

I think this article needs an update on different controversies that the gaming media has covered in their stories. It shapes and defines what the game brings with its gameplay and service quality.

Additionally, legal battles specifically related to Runescape should be mentioned.

Major expansions such as new skills and other content like clan camps etc should be mentioned as they impact the game's reception as a whole.

The player reception is out of date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.29.196.248 (talk) 09:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

These problems are already known; the issue is finding sources to address them. As for clans, we'll come to that when the citadels are actually released. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 10:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Didn't Scarmudgeon add some stuff about legal issues with Jagex? --Σ ^talk_contribs 21:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes; we decided that was better suited to Jagex and, well, he reacted pretty badly to being told that. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 09:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

What about a source like this? I don't know if it would be viable. just trying to help =D ---> goo. gl/tC4eA (Take out the space) Sephiroth878 (talk) 16:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

While I don't have a problem with the source, it would be difficult to use as a reference since that website triggers Wikipedia's spam blacklist, and I refuse to use shortened URLs as sources (they could easily be used to hide malicious websites, although that isn't a problem here.) 1ForTheMoney (talk) 18:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

examiner.com is blacklisted because anybody can create an account and write anything they like, with zero editorial control - it's WP:USERGENERATED, we shouldn't go anywhere near it as a source. --McGeddon (talk) 19:09, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I see that now in your WP link. Sorry about that. I will try to hunt down some reputable sources then for you guys, then I'll share them here. Sephiroth⁸⁷⁸ | Talk 19:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Clan Citadels

Are they notable enough to be included? --Σ ^talk_contribs 22:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Given that clan citadels have received secondary coverage (Eurogamer), I think we're at the point where we can have a section on clans in general. I'd put it below the Quests section and only cover the really general stuff - clan forums, clan camp, clan citadels and all that. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 23:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I was just about to say that that sort of thing needs third-party sources, and look what 1FTM finds. Thanks to that, I agree that a general "clan" section would work. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 23:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

It is only one source, and it's kinda brief. I'll see if I can dig up more. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 00:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

While poking around various gaming sites (if you want articles on RuneScape, you've got to look beyond the mainstream), I was able to find stuff about citadels on Massively and this Q&A on MMORPG.com. I'd like to include more secondary websites in our sources and this is a good start. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 14:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Criticism

If anyone's been paying attention to RuneScape lately, they'll see that the wave of criticism has surged and become an epidemic. I think that there ought to be a proper section on the Criticism of RuneScape with some forum threads sourced, because there are quite a lot of issues with RuneScape in the public spectrum that may be worth documenting.

For example, things worth mentioning:

• Bots and Jagex's response to them.
• Heavy marketing ploys such as refer-a-friend and Bonus XP weekend.
• The Free Trade / Wildy controversy (and the unanimous outrage both when they were taken out and put back in.)
• Player suggestions, how they have been dealt with, how players feel they have not been listened to.

Does anyone else agree that this would merit inclusion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.102.158 (talk) 00:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Only if they've been covered by the mass media. --Σ _{^talkcontribs} 00:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

We cannot have a section just on criticism, because those aren't balanced, but I can see your point. Trouble is, as Σ points out, the mass media isn't picking it up, making it difficult to write anything. I shall keep looking through our current sources and see if anything has come up. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 08:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

where is the cool pics of the girl?? why is it gone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.162.103 (talk) 00:56, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

In a word, copyright issues. However, looking through this talk page's archives will yield a veritable bounty of good reading on that subject if you wish to get deeper. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 01:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Before the Original Runescape?

Is it worth mentioning at all DeviousMUD?? Jagex's game that ultimately became Runescape in 2001? Just a thought.Sephiroth878 (talk) 15:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

It used to be mentioned, then it was decided the two products were unrelated and so didn't need a mention here. (The statements were also being propped up with unreliable sources, but that was a secondary point.) 1ForTheMoney (talk) 15:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Well the reason I had asked is because I had found about 4 or 5 sources, one from the creator of RUnescape/DeviousMUDSephiroth878 (talk) 15:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I should like to see them before making a judgement call. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 15:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

For what its worth here are the sources I found so far. (Early apology if not posted right :O)

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.mud/browse_thread/thread/27d9c89f92085f64/7e612836a3400f39?pli=1

maybe this one: http://deviousmud.tripod.com/

WayBAck Archive: http://web.archive.org/web/19990125092020/http://sleepy.fitz.cam.ac.uk/

Has Pictures with it: http://www.stellardawncentral.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=16183

a video of RuneFest where Andrew speaks about DeviousMUD: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vse_zPwPz-s#t=9m30s

http://www.tip.it/runescape/index.php?times=437

=]Sephiroth878 (talk) 16:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm going to shoot down most of your sources for various reasons - mostly because they aren't reliable.

• 1 is just a Usenet post where Andrew talks about a new MUD he's created.
• 2 is the website we used before and ultimately decided wasn't a reliable source.
• 3 is just an archived site with 3 links. There's simply nothing there.
• 4 is off a forum and could disappear at any time. In any case, it wouldn't be classed as reliable.
• 5 is a YouTube video. For various reasons, they are generally not used as sources.

Out of all of them, only the last link is useful, but it doesn't explicitly say that DeviousMUD was related to or was the predecessor of RuneScape. As a result, there's nothing to positively connect the two items, which is why we ultimately removed any mention of it from the article. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 19:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Completely understandable. Yeah number 2 was about the "best" Ive found as of yet. The Video was decent but you have a very valid point. For the rest of them, yeah I imagined you would lol. There's just NO evidence of the subject matter, which is kind of sad to be honest.Sephiroth⁸⁷⁸ | Talk 19:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

- Oh yeah what about the last link, the one from tip.it?Sephiroth⁸⁷⁸ | Talk 19:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The tipit link does not say anything that plainly states that RuneScape was related to DeviousMUD (other than the mentions of RuneTek in the captions of the images). --Σ _{^talkcontribs} 19:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Roger that. I will still try to hunt something up on it though.Sephiroth⁸⁷⁸ | Talk 20:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Andrew has stated that DeviousMUD was a precursor to RuneScape. →Στc. 23:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

As it is currently an online browser game,

should it also use template Massively multiplayer online strategy video games ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by C933103 (talk • contribs) 09:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Doubtful. RuneScape is a massively multiplayer online role-playing game, which is a different genre. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 11:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Out of Date Information

In Player Reaction is States

On 10 December 2007, updates by Jagex removed free player-versus-player combat and unbalanced trading in order to rid the game of activities involving real currency being traded for virtual goods.[31][109] The updates also affected legitimate players, resulting in many of them actively complaining on the forums.[110] Jagex issued a Customer Support News article admitting the updates may not have been an ideal replacement for what was removed, requesting patience and promising to remedy potential problems with updates in the future.[111] During the changes, subscription numbers fell by 60,000.[112] No figures were given as to how many of those subscriptions belonged to legitimate players and how many to gold farmers. In an interview in February 2008, Jagex's head of content stated that, "we were really afraid we were going to lose our members over this change, because other games had in the past. But we are very, very pleased to say that we have lost practically none of our members."[113]

But they added it back in. This Information is out of date.

I would Edit it myself...But I'm bad at editing and stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaroncampf (talk • contribs) 18:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

 Working--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 19:55, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

 Already done '"PvP Worlds" were introduced on 15 October 2008 where players could fight almost anywhere in Gielinor,[33] but these and "Bounty Worlds" were removed when PvP combat in the Wilderness was restored on 1 February 2011.[34]'--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 19:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Just to add, the information doesn't fit under player reception, so trying to shoe-horn it in there wouldn't have worked anyway. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 21:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

only most popular *free* mmorpg?

is it not the most popular mmorpg in the world, from both free and not free?