Talk:Wasteland 2

VentureBeat

Warning: The linked "VentureBeat" article is untrustworthy. It claims Wasteland 2 is going to be some kind of multiplayer online game. Melnorme1984 (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Removed. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 17:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

"As envisioned, Wasteland 2 is a turn-based, top-down, role-playing, party game set in a Fallout-like post-apocalypse game."[1] - only "untrustworthy" thing here are the people who would somehow read this as "some kind of multiplayer online game" (you two). --Niemti (talk) 10:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Fan Art

Is it okay to put couple of fan art to this article? --Infestor (talk) 20:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd say no. While such fan art might be released under the appropriate copyright license, typically only official material is used for articles, unless the fan art itself is the subject. 217.120.178.21 (talk) 20:40, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Concept Art for the page?

Is it appropriate to use one of the publicly-released pieces of concept art for Wasteland 2 on this page? The "desktop wallpaper" section has two pictures with logos that would both potentially work for the article if such a thing is done. 174.31.154.235 (talk) 23:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The forum issues

Discuss here before adding anything. --Niemti (talk) 09:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

"Mute and devoid of scripted personalities" is something that whackjob made up before he went crazy on the Wasteland 2 forums and got himself banned. Since I've been deprived of my ability to edit this article, I'm asking you to remove it. I also reworded the sentence about having "100% control" to something that sounded better, but he reverted that too. Melnorme1984 (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

It's also arguable whether Wasteland 2's system of companions will be "strongly different" from Fallout's. The truth is that deep and involved Bioware-style NPC companions were never Fallout's forte. In Fallout 1, they were an obvious last minute hackjob and barely had personalities! Melnorme1984 (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, Dogmeat is surely best remembered of them all while not talking at all. Anyway, what is the original source of this information? --Niemti (talk) 21:16, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The officially released information about Wasteland 2's party system is already linked to from the article (references 6 and 7). Beyond that, there are a few tidbits that the design team have leaked to the forum's moderators - not something you can cite on a Wikipedia article. Melnorme1984 (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Hidden. Also get yourself a Wikipedia account, you'll be able to edit stuff yourself lol. --Niemti (talk) 21:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I _do_ think it's worth noting that this game's system (creating a full party) will be different from that of most recent RPGs (with the notable exception of the Neverwinter Nights 2: Storm of Zehir expansion pack). But the way he phrased it, with the emphasis on how the system is "strongly different from Fallout" (Why mention Fallout specifically? This isn't a Fallout sequel, this is a Wasteland sequel!), is extremely passive aggressive. Melnorme1984 (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Isn't Wasteland 2 Fallout's spiritual successor? That would explain why he emphasized that. But I agree that it is probably better to keep speculation off of the wiki until it is official. The info will be hidden until then. Cheers. :) Kapitaenk (talk) 00:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I found this: http://wasteland.inxile-entertainment.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=1100#p18458 It is an official press release from the game developers. Quote: "Wasteland is one of my favorite RPGs of all time, and when Brian asked if I wanted to work on the sequel, I jumped at the chance. While I've worked on Fallout 2 and Fallout: New Vegas, getting the chance to work on the spiritual successor to the Fallout franchise is a honor." I suppose we could add that Wasteland 2 is considered to be the spiritual successor of the original Fallout games. Kapitaenk (talk) 00:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Except that makes absolutely no sense. Wasteland came out 9 years before Fallout. Fallout was the spiritual successor to Wasteland. Wasteland 2 is a sequel to Wasteland. Calling it the spiritual successor to Fallout is just plain silly. I can only assume that he meant the "spiritual predecessor to Fallout". Otherwise, we're in the weird situation of a game being the spiritual successor to a game that was a spiritual successor to the game the first is a sequel of. 99.141.131.13 (talk) 05:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The games certainly seem to be related, and according to Fargo Wasteland 2 will have elements of both games (check references). "sequel to Wasteland" and "spiritual successor of Fallout" seems appropriate to me. What would you recommend? Kapitaenk (talk) 05:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Avellone has clarified that he confused between "predecessor" and "successor": http://www.ripten.com/2012/03/30/chris-avellone-and-brian-fargo-bring-obsidian-and-inxile-together-again/ Melnorme1984 (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I removed that reference and replaced it with another one where Fargo talks about how Fallout and Wasteland will influence Wasteland 2. Kapitaenk (talk) 08:34, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the article still says "spiritual successor of Fallout" - did you mean to remove that as well? (I'm agnostic on whether or not it should be removed, mind you) Melnorme1984 (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Why would you want to remove it? I believe that the game will be strongly influenced by Fallout, and not just Wasteland, according to what I have read. I would call it a spiritual successor. Kapitaenk (talk) 10:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Because successor implies a sequel in everything but name, something that has been a serious bone of contention in the Wasteland 2 development forums. And since this is a sequel to an existing property, there's no need to talk about it being a spiritual successor to anything, especially since the only official word on WL2 being a successor to Fallout was a misstatement. WL2 isn't going to be the long lost Van Buren that many Fallout fans want, it's going to be a sequel to Wasteland. Just look at the rage edits a few days ago by an enraged backer that expected it to be more Fallout than Wasteland. Keeping the description coldly lashed only to exact facts is probably for the best at this stage anyway. More can be added when the vision document is released. 99.141.131.13 (talk) 04:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I say we change the opening sentence to this and let people draw their own conclusions:

Wasteland 2 is an upcoming post-apocalyptic role-playing video game developed by inXile Entertainment for the Microsoft Windows, Mac OS X and Linux platforms. It will be the sequel to Wasteland (1988), which is the spiritual ancestor of the original Fallout games published by Interplay Entertainment.[5][6]

Melnorme1984 (talk) 10:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

It's probably okay, but I think it requires clarification. To most people nowadays, Fallout is a first person Bethesda game. It should be changed to "may be considered a spiritual successor of the original Interplay Fallout games". Melnorme1984 (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Done. :) Kapitaenk (talk) 11:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Vision Document Released

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0BxMevjNSr2EjbDBpZ2ZMdmNnc28 84.229.222.242 (talk) 21:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I've seen your edit to the Gameplay section, Kapitaenk. It's still problematic - you're suggesting that something is lacking where it isn't. This article should tell people what the game DOES do, not speculate on what it doesn't do. This is how I would change what you wrote:

From this: "but they will be devoid of personal motivations and opinions, and as such will only be driven by the choices that the player makes. The party will also include non-player characters, each with their own (non-customizable) personalities, motivations, opinions and agendas."

to this: "The party will also include non-player characters, each with their own personalities, motivations, opinions and agendas."

Melnorme1984 (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I know it is vaguely described in the vision document, but that is basically what it says, this is what the game will do. The player makes all decisions for his Rangers (like in many games with a main character), but not for the NPCs. I really do not understand why this is such a problem for you. I'll see if I can think up something better, so that we can end your dispute and unlock this article. Kapitaenk (talk) 21:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

You SHOULD describe what sort of game this will be. You can even point out that it differs from most modern RPGs (in that you generate 4 PCs instead of just one), and compare it to some older ones. But when you describe it as a negative ("but they will be devoid of", "non-customizable"), the impression is that you're pointing out flaws in the game, rather than merely describing it. Melnorme1984 (talk) 21:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

But you can't customize the NPCs as you can customize the PCs for example. Why do you consider this to be a flaw? What is wrong with differentiating the 2 types of characters in your party? "non-player characters, the latter similar in most respects to player characters except that the player will not have full control over them". Is that a flaw too? Kapitaenk (talk) 21:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

PCs are PCs, and NPCs are NPCs. Everybody knows that "player characters" in an RPG are fully customizable avatars of the player, usually with blank slate personalities (because they fully "belong" to the player), while "non-player characters" come with a preprogrammed personality and certain constraints (because they don't "belong" to the player). That's why the additional qualifications are redundant, and make it seem like the article is pointing out flaws where they don't exist, when all it really needs to do is say that there can be 4 player-generated PCs and 3 recruited NPCs with set personalities in the player's party. Melnorme1984 (talk) 21:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

NPOV

"The Rangers will be highly customizable and the player's choice of statistics, skills and appearance will give the Rangers an individualized personality, but they will be devoid of personal motivations and opinions, and as such will only be driven by the choices that the player makes."

Italicized portion is non-NPOV and is just weasel words trying to skim under the radar. It's just a slightly less strong version of calling the PCs automations or "soulless stat sheets". 99.141.138.10 (talk) 04:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

It looks fine. The PCs do not have personal opinions, the NPCs do. According to the linked reference this is also correct. 70.178.95.46 (talk) 22:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The player character doesn't have opinions? I agree with the first message, just horrible, please remove the sentence. 86.50.44.38 (talk) 09:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I've fixed it, but it seems like one of the editors disagrees with me. Melnorme1984 (talk) 22:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

And what's wrong with Fallout connection thing? I've never even played the original Wasteland, I'm editing the Wasteland series and related (developers etc) articles only because I'm a Fallout fan and I appreciate it because without Wasteland there would be no Fallout. --Niemti (talk) 09:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Nothing. Wasteland 2 definitely has a connection with Fallout, but I wouldn't describe it as being a spiritual successor of Fallout. We should find a better way to describe the relationship. Or like I wrote above, simply remark on the fact that the original Wasteland was a spiritual ancestor of Fallout and let people draw their own conclusions. Melnorme1984 (talk) 10:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

But that's how it was and it was deleted. --Niemti (talk) 11:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

No, KapitaenK's edit stated that Wasteland 2 (not the original) was a spiritual successor (not ancestor) of Fallout. That doesn't make much sense. Melnorme1984 (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Lack of updates for the last 2 months

I just wanted to update the article, then realized why no one else did. Did Fargo grab the Kickstarter money and fled to Transnistria? What's going on? --Niemti (talk) 01:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

There's the news that the original Wasteland will come bundled with it? I guess? http://www.theverge.com/gaming/2012/7/10/3148460/wasteland-1-to-be-bundled-with-wasteland-2 Euchrid (talk) 01:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's probably time to update now. --Niemti (talk) 19:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Someone's keen on making unconstructive edits at Template:Wasteland series

Really, really obsessed with making a special category "Cancelled games" for just one cancelled game (and also to have the word "series" italicized like if it was a title). And is really combative when talking about it[2] (and yes, he/she claims one thing, but does something else). The name's "MegaCyanide666". So, help me keep an eye on it, or maybe propose a different layout (other than the latest mine). --Niemti (talk) 20:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

It happened again. I agree that 'Cancelled games' doesn't merit its own section of the template. I might start a conversation on the template talk, see if we can't establish a consensus. Euchrid (talk) 00:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Game Camera View

The developers CHANGED the camera system I originally just removed the mention of the camera hoping that someone would use the correct term, but everyone is arguing over the camera still being isometric, and old articles. That Is WHY I linked the youtube video that includes the mention of the new camera system. http://y2u.be/HvNbuOenVPw time 14:40. I am still not sure of the correct description of this camera view, but it is not a fixed 3/4 or isometric view. *In that video the developer says they changed the system*, and demonstrates that it has full 360° left-right rotation, and can move all of the way to a top view. He never mentioned or demonstrated the maximum "down" rotation the camera is capable of, but he does move it further down than the default 3/4 angle of view. If someone could please correctly cite the video that would be excellent.173.197.176.165 (talk) 07:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

There are problems with people not understanding what the camera view is in this game, and are using old references and inaccurate/out of context references.

WL2 uses the Unity engine, and the camera is currently a "3D" "Third-person perspective" "interactive camera system".

• Objects in the world are 3D not 2D or psuedo-3D.
• The camera is Perspective not Orthographic(parallel projection)
• The game allows the player to lock the 3D camera to a pseudo isometric view and a pseudo top-down view.

--Sxerks (talk) 17:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

That's fine - just find a reliable source, specifically talking about Wasteland 2, that states what you are showing , otherwise its just original research. The one I added from 1UP states "Even in the absence of all this, what we have is an isometric RPG with turn-based combat". I don't claim to be an expert on the subject but I'm relying on the source which does use that term. Perhaps the source is wrong, perhaps not a source is needed. Caidh (talk) 18:34, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

All these gaming websites that are used as sources are on the same level as any blogger, they are writing opinion and shouldn't be used as sources. No source is needed, as it can be easily done by going through Video_game_graphics, yes, it's "original research", but it's not hard to do.--Sxerks (talk) 01:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Confirmed for a troll. --Niemti (talk) 14:24, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

"Isometric" is not a term specific to gaming. It's term that derives from draughting, and there's an infinite number of resources that will define it in a way that excludes Wasteland 2. It is not necessary to provide a source that says "Wasteland 2 is not isometric" in order to disprove this. It is unambiguously wrong to say that this game is isometric.

Isometric refers to the projection style, not the viewing angle. The distinction is that perspective projection has parallax. What that means is that objects that are furter away from the camera are smaller and objects that are closer are bigger. You can see this in Wasteland. As a character moves from the bottom of the screen toward the top will become smaller, and a tall building will be slightly larger on the roof than on the floor. This is parallax. An isometric game like, say Zaxxon or Landstalker does not have this distortion. Frogacuda (talk) 19:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Here's a very helpful illustration from wikipedia's article on isometric graphics in games [3]. Wasteland 2's view is like the first. An isometric game is like the second. Notice the perfectly vertical lines on the walls of the house in the second image because there is no parallax effect, whereas these lines are diagonal on the perspective image. Frogacuda (talk) 19:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Isometric seems to have become a "buzz word" "catch all" term for any game with a camera angle like Fallout/Diablo. It's also not 3/4 view or optional top down, it a 3D interactive camera, to be more technical a "northern hemisphere" interactive camera since it can't go below the "equator" so to speak.--Sxerks (talk) 01:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I see people call stuff like Diablo 3 isometric. But it isn't and that doesn't really excuse deliberately misusing it on wikipedia. I think a good compromise might be to say it uses a "semi-overhead view similar to isometric games."Frogacuda (talk) 12:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• http://www.destructoid.com/leaked-video-of-wasteland-2-shows-off-isometric-view-234481.phtml
• http://www.pcgamesn.com/wasteland-2-video-shows-isometric-perspective-camera-angle-diversity
• http://www.cinemablend.com/games/Wasteland-2-Screenshot-Shows-Graphical-Power-Unity-Budget-44859.html

etc etc.

Also: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/inxile/wasteland-2/posts/412225 ("There are three main camera elements that we should explain. The first is the camera zoom level. There has been a lot of talk since the start of the project about top down versus isometric. By using the mouse wheel, the player can smoothly zoom from a tight isometric camera back to a wider isometric shot. By further zooming out, the camera moves from the wide isometric to an old school top-down shot. If you are the type of player that doesn’t want the camera angle to change, just leave it alone. If you like to see things from different heights, or from the top down, you have the option of rolling the mouse wheel at any point, in or out of combat, and see the world from the perspective you want.")

Posted yesterday. Apparently, you two know better than the developers. Wow. --Niemti (talk) 14:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, apparently we do. So does the dictionary. "Drafting. designating a method of projection (isometric projection) in which a three-dimensional object is represented by a drawing (i·somet·ric draw·ing) having the horizontal edges of the object drawn usually at a 30° angle and all verticals projected perpendicularly from a horizontal base, all lines being drawn to scale. Compare orthographic projection."

As you can see in this image[4] the trees are all parallel in real life but appear at different angles on-screen because of parallax distortion, meaning this is clearly NOT isometric according to the dictionary definition. Common misconceptions do not justify their misuse here.Frogacuda (talk) 19:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Didn't know Wastland 2 has anything in "the dictionary" that will contradict all the sources (including what the developers say about their own game). --Niemti (talk) 20:00, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Again, one credible source that shows any definition of isometric compatible with Wasteland 2. That's all I ask. It doesn't exist. I can find a million pieces of wrong information on the internet, but the dictionary is considered to be a MORE credible source than them, therefore it would be considered sufficient to nullify the sources you've given by wikipedia's own standard. I've written GA articles, I've been working as a gaming journalist for major sites for many years, and I know more about this than you. Do not continue this revert war. Use the talk pages and let the dispute be settled. Frogacuda (talk) 20:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• A note to Frogacuda & Sxerks -- while I don't think you're incorrect in your analysis of the game, note that Wikipedia's policy of verifiability clearly dictates that articles should reflect sources over any editor's perception of truth or correctness. Are you able to provide reliable sources stating the use of "isometric" to describe's Wasteland 2 graphics is incorrect? That's the first requirement for any content dispute such as this one: provide reliable sources. Obviously Niemti's behaviour isn't as polite as some would wish, but I do not believe it diminishes the value of his arguments on this particular issue. I also feel compelled to urge you all to stop edit warring over whether the game's isometric or not while the discussion isn't resolved. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 21:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems rather absurd to require an article about Wasteland 2 being not isometric, but I can find many sources that refer to it as having "3D graphics", which is in conflict with isometric projection, a pseudo-3D view. Would that be considered sufficient to reconcile this debate?Frogacuda (talk) 21:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if it will resolve anything, but please do bring forward the sources that state the game is not isometric. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 21:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Frogacuda - you are fighting a battle about this game where apparently you disagree with the usage of the term isometric in gaming in general. Games have used this term to refer to video games with this perspective for decades. Find a source that SPECIFICALLY refers to THIS game as non-isometric. Otherwise you are using original research. If you want to discuss the term's usage in gaming in general, discuss it in WP:Video Games or a similar, more comprehensive venue. You do not have consensus here to make this change.Caidh (talk) 21:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

This is not true at all. I agree with everything written on the article Isometric graphics in video games and pixel art, and everything written there specifically excludes Wasteland 2. There's even an illustration explaining the difference. You are simply not grasping the distinction between a game like Diablo and a game like Diablo 3. One uses isometric projection to create a 3D-like world with 2D graphics, and one is standard 3d graphics with a camera pointing down at an angle.Frogacuda (talk) 22:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh - and also, if you don't agree with the usage of sites like those used in the citations here (which are gaming sites but more than just 'blogs') take it up on WP:Video Games as well. Wikipedia does not require scholarly review of its sources, but using such sources as you are using and making your own interpretations is WP:Synthesis which is specifically not allowed.

When terms are in conflict, it should be sufficient to find a conflicting term. For example, I don't need to find an article that Elmo is not blue to contradict one that says he is. I can simply find an article that says he is red, since if he is red, he is not blue. People don't generally write about all the things that something isn't. Find me an article that says Skyrim isn't isometric, for example.

Keep in mind the argument is not whether the game's camera adheres to the definition of isometric, but whether reliable sources state the game's camera to be isometric. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 22:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

So what I offer as a source is this video feature[5], narrated by one of the game's developer's and uploaded to their official channel, which clearly shows and discusses the game's 3D perspective and moveable camera. At 14:42 he even references that they had formerly planned to use an isometric camera, but that they are no longer. This, in conjunction with the dictionary definition (really EVERY definition) of isometric should be enough to reconcile this dispute. Frogacuda (talk) 21:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

"At 14:42 he even references that they had formerly planned to use an isometric camera, but that they are no longer." - are you deliberately attempting to misquote the source and earn your ban? Also: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/inxile/wasteland-2/posts/412225 (which I've linked already). --Niemti (talk) 22:05, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)In the provided source, a staff member says they "originally thought they would use a static isometric camera" and that the final product allows the player to control the camera. I am not being intentionally thick, but I do not see how that says the game cannot be described as "isometric" or would be better described in another way... :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 22:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, as he explains, an isometric view is static. So by abandoning that, they were able to create a camera that can be rotated and moved up and down. That's the feature he's showing off. He's saying it was one thing, and now it's a different, contradictory thing. Make sense? Frogacuda (talk) 22:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

You made me laugh for real. ([has been a lot of talk since the start of the project about top down versus isometric. By using the mouse wheel, the player can smoothly zoom from a tight isometric camera back to a wider isometric shot. (...) The last camera feature we want to explain is the ability to rotate the camera to view the scene from any direction. First, you can simply disable camera rotation – the levels have been designed so that you can play the entire game without having to change the camera’s orientation.]) --Niemti (talk) 22:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

What frustrates me here, is that your dispute is not with whether or not Wasteland 2 is isometric, but with the definition of isometric but you won't accept ANY source on the subject. You claim is not that it uses a fixed angle or that all verticals are perpendicular to the ground plane, as described in definitions. Your claim is that isometric means something else, but you refuse to clarify what you think it means.

This means there some seriously problematic ambiguity with the way the article is written. Wouldn't it be better, then to settle on a clearer, more descriptive way of describing the camera system? I'm sure there's a compromise to be had here, if indeed you have any interest in helping this article. Tell me what you think "isometric" means, and we'll find an alternate phraseology that works for everyone. Fair enough?Frogacuda (talk) 23:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

No. The only claim is that reliable sources describe the subject of the article as "isometric". That's really all that matters. Whether it's wrong or not, it has no bearing on what fact the actual should reflect. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 23:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

If an alternate wording captures the same meaning, it should be used in place of a disputed one. Consistency of the term's application across wikipedia is important, as well.Frogacuda (talk) 23:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, the sources are not reliable on the subject of isometry, they're reliable on the subject of games. What is being disputed here is really the meaning of the term "isometric" not the game's graphical style, and 1up.com is not an authority on that.Frogacuda (talk) 23:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually you didn't show "ANY source" at all (and to remind you: To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented., emphasis as in the original). I won't tell you what "I think", because my opinion is just irrevelant as yours. --Niemti (talk) 23:42, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed text

• "(...) a camera system that can be rotated and moved from an isometric to a top-down view.

• This reflects the strongest source (the developer itself) with the most recent information and is appropriately referenced. Whether it is really isometric as per the definition of that term or not is of little consequences as what matters is that the fact is verifiable. Is this something we can all agree on? If not, please explain how you think this does correctly reflect the reliable reference. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 23:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

The back of the box for Space Quest I clearly states that it has "incredible 3D graphics"[6], but anyone with eyeballs can see that it is completely 2D. Your source is valid if the claim is that it is "billed as isometric" or "marketed as isometric," but not sufficient to establish that it is isometric. Do you appreciate that distinction, or shall I update the Space Quest article?

I think there comes a point where common sense needs to take over so we can cooperate on a common goal. Everyone here knows that WL2 doesn't meet the technical/dictionary definition of isometric, just as everyone here understands that the term is sometimes used informally to describe games that have a similar camera angle. So we just need to figure out how to form a sentence that is compatible with both of these facts. It shouldn't be that hard. Frogacuda (talk) 23:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

No, it's you who need to accept everything in WP:OR, WP:V and WP:RS, and to do it now. (As of Space Quest, sources saying it was only a pseudo-3D game exist, such as[7] and multiple paper sources from 1986 onward, you don't need to and you can't "update" anything with your original research.) --Niemti (talk) 00:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

If it is very clear that the game does not actually have an isometric view, sources which claim the game does have an isometric view should be disregard as non-reliable for this particular fact. Furious Style (talk) 00:55, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Correct. Since we have better sources on the definition of isometric projection, we can consider the other sources cited as unreliable for that fact. They are reliable sources for other information, but their reliability on word usage is inferior to other sources. Since no one here has offered any other working definition of isometric other than that, I have to wonder why they're so passionate that it's application is correct in the case of WL2. Seems like fighting for fighting's sake. Frogacuda (talk) 01:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Sources are unreliable on the subject they're being used for, or at least they are less reliable than academic sources on isometric projection, which they conflict with. Frogacuda (talk) 01:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Due to all the poor English used in this discussion, I am having trouble determining who is maintaining what position. Literally speaking, no, this game is not isometric. But I can't come up with a better word to use instead. ("Bird's-eye view" is the closest I can do, and I don't really like it.) SharkD  Talk  09:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I think "semi-overhead 3D camera" adequately accounts for it. The camera is movable from about half-overhead to full overhead and everywhere in-between, and can be rotated, so that's more or less all you can/need to say about it.Frogacuda (talk) 15:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

It's technically a "3D" "Third-person Perspective" "interactive camera system" "locked above the horizon" with customization options that allow for a pseudo isometric and a pseudo top-down viewpoint. There isn't a singular word that can be used to describe it. "Interactive 3rd person camera" may be the simplest. And the source would be the latest video, being used as a visual source, not text or verbal.--Sxerks (talk) 16:57, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually there is this one word: "isometric". Which is why everyone's using it. --Niemti (talk) 17:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

At a certain point we have to ask ourselves, which is more likely: That the developers (and journalists subsequently referencing them)were using the term informally and incorrectly to liken the game to a familiar reference point, or that every dictionary on the planet is wrong? That is precisely the dilemma here, and I think we all know the answer.Frogacuda (talk) 21:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

References, text books, dictionaries, etc are all perfectly valid sources to discredit an existing source, and this kind of discussion is very common on wikipedia. The source you have cited on Wasteland 2 is not a credible source of information about what is and isn't isometric. It does not provide any meaningful description of characteristics that might define the game as isometric, nor does it express any particular understanding of the term. It's an invalid source for the purpose of defining the game's projection method. I'm sorry you've lost your argument, but maybe you'll have better luck if you stick to arguing points you actually believe about words you can actually use in a sentence. If you don't have anything more to add to the matter, then let's consider this discussion closed, shall we? Frogacuda (talk) 01:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

You can bring any reliable "references, text books, dictionaries, etc" that are "directly related" the topic of the article (the game titled "Wasteland 2") --Niemti (talk) 13:07, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm bringing sources that are directly related to the claim of isometry made by the source. I'm not using them in the article, I'm using them here to prove the source is unreliable. Unless you can find a source that actually describes the game in terms that are consistent with my more reliable sources of what isometric projection means, we would have to consider the sources you've given unreliable, as we would any other source making the claim in a similarly informal way. This may not be sufficient to make the claim "Wasteland 2 is not isometric" in the article, but it's enough to keep you from saying it is.Frogacuda (talk) 18:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't common sense dictate that the flat dictionary definition of a term is far more reliable than nearly any other source? --ThomasO1989 (talk) 17:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

No. (Because Wikipedia core content policies beat any essay.) --Niemti (talk) 18:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia core content policies dictate that context matters. "Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is an appropriate source for that content." We've had an extensive debate here, and everyone but you is agreed that the source is not reliable. If I were to actually use the dictionary to make a statement that it is "not isometric" in the article, that would be OR. But I am not making statements either way about that (in the article) and have not used the term "isometric" at all. I am simply making verifiable, reliable claims and describing the camera in better terms. This matter has been settled. The sources are not reliable to support that claim because they conflict with better sources on isometric projection. This isn't an OR issue. OR deals with what's in the article. This is a reliable source discussion. Frogacuda (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

So are you suggesting that you are making a decision that conflicts with common sense? Are you intentionally introducing information that you know is inaccurate only because a source says so? --ThomasO1989 (talk) 19:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

It's "common sense" according to your original research. Unless you know a reliable dictionary mentioning this game by name. --Niemti (talk) 20:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Again, extensively sourced, stable, and consistent definition is not original research, and to intentionally contradict that defies common sense. You are the only one arguing that it actually is an isometric view and even you have not presented an argument to that effect except that "dictionaries don't count." Using isometric in this way is the same as saying "peaked his interest." A lot of people do it, but anyone with an education knows it should be "piqued". If you want to call it "isometric" there needs to be a (sic) after it, because it's an obvious malapropism.Frogacuda (talk) 21:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Show me a dictionary definition talking about this game specifically, mentioning it by name (Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.; To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.; Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article., bolded out as in the original), then it might count. You don't like it, go make your "GAMING BLOG" or whatever and cry us a river about it, but here it's Wikipedia and you're clearly in a wrong place. The end. --Niemti (talk) 12:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

To use the dictionary as a source in the article, it would need to reference Wasteland 2. To use the dictionary as a source to discredit your cited sources, then I need only be able to demonstrate in common sense terms that your source is unreliable. Which I have. Source is invalid, and any source making a similar claim is inherently invalid unless it can use the term in a way that is consistent with the more reliable sources. Frogacuda (talk) 18:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia also says you have to be civil, which you have not been during in this entire discussion, so you yourself have broken one of Wikipedia's core policies. You can be rude to people on 4Chan or YouTube, but this is Wikipedia and you're clearly in a wrong place. The end. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 16:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

There's just that much patience for someone who obsessively keeps arguing against the very basics of what Wikipedia is and stands for, and wasting everyone's time, all while not ever contributing anything of any actual value to the article. And now some the original researchers are even canvassing people who had never even edit Wikipedia before at all, somewhere (maybe they made an angry thread on a forum, or maybe it's their "GAME BLOG" of some kind, I don't really care, they just won't pass). --Niemti (talk) 16:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Wording I would support: "...overhead perspective similar to isometric games." SharkD  Talk  20:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I have no real problem with this wording. I had made an edit to that effect (I think I said "semi-overhead," though) but Niemti reverted it. I think ultimately this is the thought being expressed by the source. He's comparing it to isometric games, not using the term literally.Frogacuda (talk) 20:43, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

In the video, which I do believe to be the most reliable source on this topic, he says that the camera WAS going to be isometric, but it can now be rotated and changed. It can still be locked, optionally, into an "isometric" or "overhead" view, but that isn't particularly important. What he describes is a rotatable 3d camera. He never uses the term 3/4, and never says it's only an overhead camera. Isometric and overhead imply restrictions on camera movement, so these terms should not be used to describe the camera view (unless noting the ability to lock the camera). 173.197.176.165 (talk) 04:19, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

About your Third Opinion request: Third Opinion is only for disputes between two editors; this has at least five and perhaps six editors involved and your request has been removed. Consider the dispute resolution noticeboard or a request for comments if you still require dispute resolution. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:32, 26 February 2013 (UTC)