Talk:StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 9

Are people seriously that strict and or just dumb?

Because honestly, if you think Starcraft II is gonna be played other by Keyboard and Mouse on a PC. Everyone knows its gonna be Mouse/Keyboard so why do you keep throwing stuff down? There not gonna confirm mouse and keyboard because they know people are not that stupid!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ripster40 (talk • contribs) 16:33, June 1, 2007

Please don't call other editors "stupid." And also familiarize yourself with one of our core policies that requires that contributions to Wikipedia be supported by verifiable and reputable sources. --ElKevbo 21:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe part of their super-amazing new game is a revolutionary RTS controller that breaks paradigms and causes metric-shattering synergies in emergent gameplay environments! (Seriously, though, yes it should be removed until it's sourced). --Haemo 22:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you fucking serious? Are we actually looking for a verifiable source that a PC game is going to be played with a keyboard and mouse? What the fuck has this website turned into? bob rulz 07:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

An encyclopedia? I'm just saying that we have no idea what they could have up their sleeves - I don't want yet another example of Wikipedia being misled on something like this because we decided that original research was okay, all of a sudden. --Haemo 07:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Every article that is controversial or "hot topic" needs citations for most of the content. Oidia 09:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Battle for Middle Earth, and Command and Conquer 3 do. Oldag07 16:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Do what? --Scottie_theNerd 16:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

OK guys please stop this. Iam not sure what you getting it on. SC2 is an RTS game where we control by Keyboard and mouse not by joystick or touchscreen(maybe in future). --SkyWalker 16:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Please don't put words in my mouth, I didn't call anyone stupid. I was questioning there mentality as human beings. It isn't that big of a deal, its just input. We all knows its Keyboard/Mouse and it will be, just saying "Oh wee need source and a verification" is just plain ignorant.Ripster40 18:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Why? Aren't attribution and verifiability core Wikipedia guidelines? I mean, I'm not saying that it's unlikely or something, but I would go ahead and add them tentatively. Sometimes, Ignoring all rules is the way to go. --Haemo 21:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you're making way too much of a deal of this, Haemo. I'd just leave it there and if it changes when the game is released, we'll change it accordingly. --Scottie_theNerd 03:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

No, no - I agree; we should retain it; though it's not currently verified, I feel that it's trivial to assert that it will be in the game, and so we should just do it --Haemo 03:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Isn't "questioning their mentality as human beings" worse than calling them stupid? But really, how can you play a PC RTS game with a joystick or a Wii controler?DARK 15:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Sources are needed because people assert things with certainty all the time, yet most of them are just guessing/assuming. Common sense/common knowledge is often proven to be false (though certainly not all the time). It's not about being strict, it's about being accurate. If you'd really like to contribute to this article, take the time to research your point. I think you, the wannabe contributors, need to do something to set yourself apart from the rabid legions of Starcraft followers seeking to gossip about the upcoming sequel. BTW, I'm aware that, despite my argument, I didn't link a single source ;) Khono 07:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is silly. If we "all know" the game will be played with keyboard and mouse, then there's no need to mention it, is there? On the other hand, if someone went through the trouble of explicitly mentioning that this will be the case, we should mention it here too, with the source.

I don't see what people are getting worked up about. If you don't like people crapping over your golden prose, don't edit. If the statement you want to put in is "obviously true", then don't complain if somebody else takes it out because it has no source. If it's so obvious that nobody else mentions it, why should we mention it? It doesn't add anything to the article unless you assume our readers are stupid and need to be told things that everybody takes for granted.

This just looks like a pissing contest to me, since I don't believe anyone seriously thinks that mentioning this is important to the article. 82.95.254.249 14:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it's not really worthwhile info, is it? JMalky 15:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

It happens :). I think people do need reliable sources if starcraft 2 is going to be played by keyboard and mouse or other devices. Maybe we all should wait for blizzard comments. :D. --SkyWalker 15:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

If there's really this many people who think it does need a reliable source for some insane reason, then I agree with the anon above....it should just be removed. bob rulz 03:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Its been done before on the N64. Dont be suprised if it heads onto the DS. 168.170.197.10 13:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)Terran1989

Trust me, they will NEVER do that again. Starcraft on the N64 is one of the worst games of all time, barely edging out the obscure Diablo 1 on the Playstation. And yeah, requiring a reliable source to tell us that the game requires a mouse and keyboard is stupid. Might as well demand a source that World of Warcraft requires an internet connection. Brother Laz 18:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

agrees, i actually played it on a N64 system, and later on the emulators. My god the graphics sucked, and there is no way you can micro with a joystick! So everyone take a chill pill, and use you common sense. RTS for PC = Keyboard + Mouse NeoDeGenero 13:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

Okay, whoever just archived this page did a really hasty job of it. It is not appropriate to archive on-going discussion - even the fastest moving pages on the encyclopedia, like WP:AN/I don't archive unless there's been no discussion in a given section for more than 24 hours. Since this page isn't even remotely as fast as those, I'd suggest only archiving content that hasn't been replied to every 7 days, at the earliest. --Haemo 21:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The archive just sliced off everything other than the last topic, even though a few topics before it had more recent posts. --Scottie_theNerd 03:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I archived. Just start a new discussions. --SkyWalker 07:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

But now all the the context, and ongoing discussions are gone. In the future, just refrain from doing such a mass move like that, without some of them expiring. --Haemo 07:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not gone. Start a new discussion and don't make a big deal of it and also the page was getting way to long. --SkyWalker 07:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The point is, ongoing discussion were terminated - now, new users to this page will not see them, and will not be able to add their input. All I'm really saying is to respect archival standards next time, and allow at least a day to progress between the last post, and archiving them. --Haemo 07:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I was about to point out WP:ARCHIVE, but Haemo was always a step ahead =(. Seriously though, that was a careless cut/paste archive. "Start new discussions" is bollocks when there was nothing wrong with the existing discussions. If you're going to archive, at least fulfill the purpose of archives and snip off the topics that are actually dead. --Scottie_theNerd 07:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Iam sorry for the last comment. Anyways thank you for explaining. I wanted to archive because it was getting way to long. I stand corrected :).--SkyWalker 07:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I thought it the Talk page was due in for an archiving, but I was surprised to see the Infoceptor debate happening yesterday among others was snipped as well. --Scottie_theNerd 08:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I think 3-5 days of inactivity is a good standard for a page that moves at this speed. We should also re-factor the archives to be by month, if we opt to do it that way. --Haemo 21:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, see below, I couldn't find the infoceptor debate! And that one isn't over by any stretch of the imagination. JMalky 15:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing

Em, can't seem to find the Infoceptor debate, and I noticed a lot of that info has crept back onto the page. Was a consensus reached? JMalky 15:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

See Here. No consensus reached. I would rather wait for ign and gamespot interview with blizzard or blizzard confirmation. --SkyWalker 15:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

So far both GameSpot and IGN have been wrong, IGN claimed that Protoss could put up shields anywhere on the map. GameSpot claimed that they warpray was called warprey. Infoceptor's information has ALWAYS been correct since they started to report about starcraft II. 89.160.65.215 20:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

That really isn't important here - Infoceptor is not a reliable source - and the methods they use to determine the "facts" placed in the article are iffy at best. Essentially, they look at the video very closely, and then attempt to infer some possible game mechanics from that. And here we have this article reporting those inferences as fact! Totally unacceptable, in my mind.

The nice thing about reliable sources like IGN and GameSpot is that they self-correct, and have an editorial board to ensure that these corrections occur. Infoceptor has no such control mechanisms. I move that this material be deleted. --Haemo 21:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I actually agree with the Infoceptor wannabies, i mean the other so called worthy sites didn't even manage to put the correct name on the units and they were actually there for the event. And yes Infoceptor actually also self correct their articles when they are wrong.And to be honest, you guys keep talking about reliable sources, so far neither IGN or GameSpot has proven to be very reliable at all, It's been nothing BUT speculations from them since the start, even when they WWI event occured they kept making stuff up that just wasn't there. Salle79 02:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you people wait for official word from blizzard instead of arguing about ign or gamespot. You need to wait for a while before gamespot and ign gaves a reliable information instead of trusting Infoceptor. This sites simply can't not give information or speculate anything. Unlike fansites they can guess and assume anything. --SkyWalker 02:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you understand reliable source guidelines - IGN and GameSpot are reliable, because they have editorial oversight and therefore do not engage in the kind of unsourced speculation that Infoceptor is engaged in. Have they made mistakes? Yes - but they quickly, and accurately corrected them. They have never deliberately engaged in open speculation and inference like the "facts" were are currently reporting as "true". --Haemo 02:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It's you guys who don't understand, There are two websites that ARE THE DEFINTION of reliable source guidelines when it comes to Starcraft and those websites are Starcraft.org and Infoceptor, they both currently have or have had members from Blizzard working on their site and they are far far from your average "fansite". If you people decide to put infoceptor and starcraft.org as just another "Fansite website that has no more knowledge than everyone else that bases everything on wild speculations that wont hold" then go with that but know this that the wikiepdia starcraft II article will be worthless, 95% of all info that will be obtained from Starcraft II WILL COME FROM THESE TWO SITES AND NOT THE ACTUALL BLIZZARD SITE OR STARCRAFT2.COM SITE. It has always been the fans that discovered the aspects of the game and Starcraft II won't be any different.130.236.188.108 14:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

While I think that Infoceptor certainly is a very reliable source, and while the information they are giving is based off of evidence rather than just speculation, I think much of the info (especially very specific info, like hit points, damage, cost, etc) should be kept from the article, mainly for the fact that the game is still in pre-Alpha stage and nothing at all is final. GameSpot and IGN may not always be correct, but they report only on info that Blizzard has released. I believe that it's okay to have some room for error on Wikipedia; not everything has to be correct now and stay that way, but that doesn't mean we have to report on everything that is seen and inferred (no matter how educated the inferences are) in the videos. bob rulz 05:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, the term "reliable sources" has a very technical meaning - which is basically like what you just outlined ;) --Haemo 05:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there a reason why we can't make use of wonderful phrases like 'it was reported...' or 'fans speculate that...' etc etc etc? If a piece of information hasn't been verified by Blizzard yet, but is a hot topic amongst the game's millions of fans, I think it might be worthwhile including it. I'm very much on the side of those who say we should pace ourselves with the information that's included in the article (and a lot of the information that has been included is totally extraneous at this stage), but let's not get to the point where we're not including anything until it's been confirmed by Blizzard (even they've been an unreliable source in the past!) JMalky 08:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, we are first and foremost, an encyclopedia - and unless you can find some reliable sourcing talking about that speculation, we have exactly the same problem. However, I would not be averse to a section which gives some terse overview of the material collected, as some kind "Some fansites, such as Infoceptor have ..." etc. Perhaps draft it here. Since we appear to have come consensus to at the very least re-write the section, I'll put it here for the time being. --Haemo 08:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Also see WP:WEASEL and WP:CRYSTAL. Limited information has been released and even less is set in concrete. We don't want to mislead readers into thinking that information gathered from screenshot analysis by Infoceptor is fact when it is little better than a stab in the dark. Include what we must, but let's get over this. No point bickering about Infoceptor all the way to the game's release. --Scottie_theNerd 09:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to propose we include the fansite wiki starcraft2wiki.info as a related link. Cyberkiller 08:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It's been around for 2 days, and has virtually no content. It totally fails external linking guidelines. --Haemo 08:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Then why is the wikia link there? Cyberkiller 09:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Re-writing the section

Here's the current version:

Starcraft 2 will introduce a few fundamental modifications to gameplay mechanics. The first is the idea of hybrid units, units which count as both ground and air units for the purposes of determining which enemies can hit it. For example, the Protoss Colossus, a tall land unit, can be hit by Missile Turrets and other weapons reserved normally only for airborne opponents.. The second is the fact that some units feature separate anti-air and anti-ground weapons that do not share cooldown. For example, the Terran Battlecruiser can attack a single ground and air unit simultaneously.

Notice the repeated statements of these inferences as "facts" - something which is total guesswork. I'd propose a version that goes along the lines of something like:

Some fansites, such as Infoceptor, have asserted that Starcraft II will introduce "hybrid" units which count as both ground and air units for the purposes of determining which enemies can hit it. For example, the Protoss Colossus, a tall land unit, was observed to be hit by Missile Turrets and other weapons reserved normally only for airborne opponents.. They also state that some units feature separate anti-air and anti-ground weapons that do not share cooldown. For example, the Terran Battlecruiser was observed to attack a single ground and air unit simultaneously.

This is if we have to include this - I'd be much more happy just removing the whole damn thing, since Wikipedia is not a fansite nor are we a crystal ball. I'd also like some more citations for this, so it's not just a transparent plug for Infoceptor. --Haemo 08:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a good re-write but yes, I'd also be in favour of removing the section altogether. Apart from including worthy/cite-able information, I think the article needs to be written in a manner that makes sense to everyone and anyone (I'm sure there's a Wikipedia guideline to that effect but I don't know what it is). This info just seems a little technical, and not appropriate for this particular page. JMalky 09:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the language is appropriate. It's not technical enough to alienate the general reader, and it's relevant enough to be understood in general terms. --Scottie_theNerd 09:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, ok, it's not that bad, but I was making a general point more than anything. Yesterday I saw that someone had written the sentence The Zerg Zergling can now mutate into the Zerg Baneling on the page. Which doesn't actually make much sense unless you have prior knowledge of the game. And what about terms like 'cooldown'? That's pretty technical.JMalky 09:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC) Sorry, that sounds very pedantic and I'm not trying to be disruptive. It's just that as someone who was an huge fan of the original game, but not a regular gamer, I feel that some terms and phrases have crept into the article at various stages which are pretty obscure. It's just something to watch out for is all I'm saying. JMalky 09:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, here's a new shot at it:

Some fansites, such as Infoceptor, have asserted that Starcraft II will introduce "hybrid" units which count as both ground and air units for the purposes of determining which enemies can hit it. For example, the Protoss Colossus, a tall land unit, was observed to be hit by Missile Turrets and other weapons reserved normally only for airborne opponents.. They also state that some units feature separate anti-air and anti-ground weapons that can fire independently of one another. For example, the Terran Battlecruiser was observed to attack a single ground and air unit simultaneously.

I think that's great, I'm going to be bold and paste it into the article because the edit war is really starting to get on my nerves. JMalky 12:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fourth Race

Isn't the sentence It has not been announced that these will be the only races in the game, but greatly implied a little misleading? I know that the Blizzard website hasn't said for certain that there won't be a fourth race, but articles such as this one at MSNBC do explicitly state that there won't. JMalky 09:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I see that's been cleared up. Cheers. JMalky 15:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I read that interview as well, that's why I'm thinking that the 4th race is non-playable. I didn't notice this thread and posted the new info below. 128.54.51.139 16:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

New info on a Possible 4th (Non-Playable Race)

Hey guys, I was fiddling around on the personal art pages of some of the Blizz Concept artists and found some info on a possible 4th race. I am thinking that perhaps Blizz will make them non-playable, such as the Demons from Warcraft III. I've seen this before with War III, as it seems that Blizz artists don't always keep track of which art is sensitive to release dates, etc. Here is a link to the SC part of the artist Raneman. The creature seems to be some sort of Protoss/Terran Hybrid called FirstBorn. You have to go forward a few images before it comes up. Im sort of a newbie at editing the page so i'll let ya'll handle that.

http://www.sonsofthestorm.com/viewer_raneman.php?cat=starcraft&art=50&sub=49 A (to the) J 72.130.183.64 08:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You're half right. http://www.amazon.com/StarCraft-Dark-Templar-Firstborn-Saga/dp/0743471253 What you were seeing was the cover art for a novel called FirstBorn where a human archeologist who became "bonded to the spirit of the dead Protoss, [he becomes] the sole inheritor of the protoss's total history -- every event, every thought -- every feeling." - Not directly related to StarCraft II. MrZaius^talk 00:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Oops good call. Thanks for the kind smack down 72.130.183.64 02:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Cinematic Interview

Hey again,

I was surfing and came upon a link to the Blizz website that had an interview with the Head Cinematic dude. The interview doesn't seem to be accecible from the main starcraft2.com website so I thought I'd pass it along. Some cool information on how they are making the Cinematics and in-game story development for SC2. There doesn't seem to be much info on Cinematics on the wiki page and that's a huge part of SC. Here ya go: http://www.starcraft2.com/features/interviews/cinematicteaser.xml 72.130.183.64 08:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the great resource! I'll look into adding something about this to the article tomorrow, unless someone beats me to it. --Haemo 11:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I added the information about this several days ago, including a section on how the Marine featured in the Cinematic Trailer will play an extensive role in Starcraft 2. However, because fansites cannot have 'reliable' interviews, the source was removed. Infoceptor is not really as much a fansite as a gaming site focused on Blizzard games. --Ceptryn 01:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey again. Although I found this on a reporting website (forgot which but not Infoceptor), I was given a link to blizzard's website where the interview is transcribed. I don't see how that is not "reliable" as it is actually being put out by Blizzard. I suppose that someone over there just hasn't linked it to their mainpage yet. If you look at the URL you'll see that its Blizzard's website that has the interview. 72.130.183.64 22:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I tried to come up with something about the cinematics to add, per Krator's comment that the article should be less unit-focused but I wasn't sure where to put it:

Starcraft II will continue its predecessor's use of Cinematic cut scenes (pre-rendered, high-quality CGI movies) between levels to advance the plot, while also improving the quality of In-game cut scenes (rendered on-the-fly using the same game engine as the graphics in the game proper) within levels the player is striving to complete. Blizzard states that with the new graphics engine that Starcraft II uses to render the gameplay, they "can actually create in-game cut-scenes of near-cinematic quality."

Nimelennar 19:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Go for it. Make a subsection of Gameplay called "units" and move the unit stuff there. All other gameplay (including this) can go directly under the gameplay header. --User:Krator (t c) 19:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

GameStop "Release Date"

The release date has not been confirmed by any place. I don't think that GameStop prelease shipping date or whatever has any authenticity to it? YanShen 23:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

quoted from MSNBC news http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18925251/page/2/ Interviewing Rob Pardo, vice president of game design at Blizzard

"The only thing I can give you [that’s] concrete is it’s not going to be this year. Some people were hoping, because of how advanced the game :looks, that we’d have it out by Christmas, but that’s definitely not happening."

When it comes to release dates just don't bother, Blizzard doesn't care much about timelines or a timelimits for how long a project should take, anyone claiming that they know the release date of Starcraft II are just guessing, and very poorly at that. Not even Blizzard themselfs knows when the game will be completet.

Honestly, GameStop just puts random dates in the future for unconfirmed products with no release date. I wouldn't take it as any confirmation - I mean, if you go down to GameStop, right now, and look at a bunch of future games without release dates, I'll bet dollars to donuts they all also ship on the same day. This link isn't reliable at all. --Haemo 00:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if they'll let us pre-order for that date it though :-p 72.130.183.64 02:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I used to work there and yes, they will. It will just change when more information comes out. --Haemo 02:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop inserting this material into the article. It is not verified by reliable sources, and constitutes rumor and speculation. --Haemo 01:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:VG Assessment

In the same order as the article.

• Avoid gaming jargon. Especially in the lead, remove all jargon like "pre-alpha", and do not just mention terms like "all three races" without explaining.
• The gameplay section is unreadable for one who has not played SC 1. Personally I am very familiar with the RTS genre, and not just with one franchise. The amount of unknown names and terms with unknown context in this article is bad. Avoid naming units as much as possible. Do not use unneeded examples that add no value. When stating "iconic units" adding the example of the Zealot will only have value to those who played the original. And those people will already know that the Zealot is an iconic unit.
• Some sentences in Gameplay are written in an in universe style. Remove that. Example: "Following the Zerg infestation of Aiur..."
• The focus is entirely on units. Units are just a part of the game. Will Blizzard introduce any new concepts, is the interface and UI made better and what totally new systems will the player be able to use? Reduce the information about units to two paragraphs at most. This is information that is more suited to fan sites or -wikis.
• Story and Technical features are stubs. Do not make stub sections - add information that is too short for it's own section to the lead, or merge with another section.
• Explain the jargon in technical features. Not everyone knows what DirectX is (an application framework), and not everyone knows why debris rolling down a ramp is so special in this context.
• Organize the navigation templates at the bottom so that only one is open at the time, and they all start closed. There is a special switch for this in the nav frame code. See for example Germany. Done --Haemo 00:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Rated Start-class, Mid-importance. This article seems written for a fan of the original game, and not all Wikipedia readers belong to that group. Enough references are present for B-class, but the Gameplay section needs a complete rewrite. It will also be tough to keep this article up to date once more information leaks. --User:Krator (t c) 13:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I fixed most of these - I think we'll wait a little while, before writing more and looking at it again. --Haemo 01:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Cheers for that Haemo. It's a real improvement! JMalky 09:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with removing the term pre-alpha. This is a very important piece of information relating to the current state of the game. It is not even a gaming term...its listed in the Software release life cycle article. For people that don't know what it means, they can just go to the (hyperlinked) article. There are plenty of words in articles that I have to look up because they are not obvious to me, but they provide information that would otherwise not be there. If you insist on taking it out, at least write 'work in progress' or 'subject to change' or 'nothing is final' or something along those lines. j 06:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

And I don't really see how it's this article's need to explain what DirectX　is. Isn't that what linking is for? Iridany 00:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Marine's Shield as Upgrade

It's not really vital to list the Marine's shield as an upgrade is it? One can also assume that the Zealot's charge and the Baneling morph are upgrades too. So for simplicities sake, perhaps it could be left out? At any rate, that section needs a good solid re-write, as per the above. JMalky 20:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I do understand why it was added. People all over teh interwebs were like WHAAAA teh marienz hav sheildz!1 dis lookz stupid im not buying teh gaem now. Things like this need to be spelled out for the total morons looking up information. And yes, that was not politically correct. Brother Laz 18:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Google Search

When you search for Starcraft 2 on Google, the wikipedia link that comes up says Starcraft 2 Information links, search STARCRAFT 2 IS GOING TO SUCK BALLS. Can Some one fix this, dunno how.

24.124.49.158 00:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

No - we'll just have to wait until Google trawls this again. --Haemo 01:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect Trimming

The correct version of the trimming not only removes proper references, but is just plain inccorect. The ability to hit and land air is not reserved for 'powerful' units. For example, Protoss Stalkers cost 2 supply, are far from power, and can hit land and air simultaneously. Niether is the ability to teleport to the radius of certain buildings a unit ability, since it is an ability facilated by the Protoss gateway that is available to a wide variety of units. Please do not heedlessly trim a paragraph to the point where it is simply inccrrect. --Ceptyrn 04:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not stated that this ability is reserved solely for "powerful" units - rather, that powerful units boast this ability. --Haemo 05:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be restoring some material that was trimmed out because of length concerns - would you like it re-included? We seem to have agreed, above, that some is acceptable - what would you like included so we can work on a revision? --Haemo 06:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The current revised version is not very lengthy. How about

Some fansites, such as Infoceptor assert that Starcraft 2 contains large ground units capable of being hit by air only attacks. They also state that some units feature separate anti-air and anti-ground weapons that can fire independently of each other. . Furthermore, there exists units capable of traversing cliffs or teleporting via a variety of different methods. . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceptryn (talk • contribs)

Any sentence that starts with "Some fansites" = NO. --Krator, VG Assessor above 07:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree - but it seems that most people will fight tooth and nail to keep this material in the article. I've continually argued that Infoceptor is not a reliable source, and none of this should be included, but I'm just one person - and it doesn't appear people are willing to compromise on this. --Haemo 07:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Should the Infoceptor links, and material be included?

I guess we need to settle this once and for all, since it's adversely affecting the quality of the article under the WP:VG standards. So, here's a role-call I guess:

• No - remove them all. Infoceptor is not a reliable source, and the standard of Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. The assertions they make could be 100% true, but they are still not acceptable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. I would like to see them removed until there is confirmation for a reliable source. --Haemo 07:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• No. The disputed paragraph needed binned at any rate. I agree with the above, and on a related note, I'd like to see the article further re-written according to Krator's suggestions. JMalky 09:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• No - Directly violates WP:CRYSTAL and WP:RS. It's pointless to analysis screenshots and videos at this stage, let alone cite information as fact from fansites that do just that. If fans want such information, they can go to Infoceptor themselves. The information on Infoceptor does not belong on Wikipedia. --Scottie_theNerd 09:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• No - Just no per the above and WP:VG/GL. Also, this straw poll is not needed.--User:Krator (t c) 09:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The last time I suggested this, I was flatly told that it was "just me" who thought the inclusion was inappropriate, and that I should yield to consensus. --Haemo 20:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry too much about it, its been all removed. —Floria L 20:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

So I saw - nice work on the re-write, etc. --Haemo 20:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• You guys are just as narrow minded as you can get, u bitch about that Mouse and Keyboard aren't confirmed and therefor it cannot be put on the page, you keep insist on that Infoceptor and Starcraft.org are nothing more than fansites, Yes hell remove them, no one that wants to find any info about the Game would want to visit this place anyway. 130.236.186.219 10:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

That's...pretty much the point? --Scottie_theNerd 10:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Its already speculation, and doesn't seem like the infoceptor things such as "fansites assert ..etc..." will stay. I've taken care of them and removed them for now. Floria L 18:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge

there appear to be two SC2 pages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarCraft_II http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starcraft_2

they appear to be different and should probably be merged.

They're the exact same article. The StarCraft 2 article merely redirects to StarCraft II. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk 

Development

Is anyone going to mention that the game has changed platforms and even MOs several times? Mark321123 16:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you maybe thinking of Starcraft: Ghost? JMalky 16:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Screenshot Vandalism

Image:Starcraft II screenshot.jpg had its commentary, fair use claim, and associated templates removed 29 May without anyone here noticing until today. Could a couple of people add the image page to the watchlist and keep tabs on it to prevent a repeated of this incident? TomStar81 (Talk) 00:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I've watchlisted it. --Haemo 00:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Unit info

I extracted all the unit info i could from the video and from blizzards features pages on starcraft.com. I didn't post it correctly the first time, and i'm wondering, what should i do with it.

Sample

Protoss

Zealot Protoss Infantry that uses Melee weapons to fight enemies. Has a "charge" ability that allows them to quickly move for a brief period of time, allowing rapid advancement on troops. Shown to be effective against terran marines on open ground, by using their "charge ability" to close the gap between the units. Vulnerable to cliffs, as demonstrated by their failure to destroy seige tanks on one.

Sample end

Is this information of high enough quality to be used? If so, should this be put on a new page (starcraft II: Units), or put on the units section of the current article. Opinions are welcome.

I don't know where i can put more info then i did already. This talk page would get quite long. MikedaSnipe 06:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Informative, but not encyclopedic. See WP:NOT#FAQ. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  06:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The article already contains a brief overview of units revealed thus far, also using Blizzard's site as references. There should not be an article dedicated to StarCraft II units as the information is not encyclopedic. --Scottie_theNerd 06:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I see, didn't know that. ty. and out. MikedaSnipe 06:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

If you want to add this sort of information please do it in this link :- StarCraft Series Wikia. --SkyWalker 09:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to apologize for accidentally marking one of your edits as vandalism - I hit the wrong button. Sorry! --Haemo 09:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Units

I just looked at the unit section again in this article and realized that it contains a disturbing lack of specific information. What's the point in knowing that a specific unit now has a "charge" ability and one can turn into a "rolling bomb" if we don't know what unit it is? I have a particular problem with this sentence: "Some units can leap over cliffs using jetpacks or are capable of short-range teleportation." First, it doesn't specify that, as far as we know, only one type of unit can do each of these. This implies that multiple types of units have been given these abilities. It's the same problem with that last sentence: "One of these units is considered so powerful that the player is not allowed to possess more than one of it at a time." What's the point in mentioning that if we don't know what it is exactly? In short, why is it encyclopedic to list that certain unnamed units have "very powerful abilites" or "can leap over cliffs using jetpacks" or can "morph into rolling bombs," yet it's not encyclopedic to actually list which units it's talking about? Sure, Wikipedia is not a game guide, but it's also supposed to be informative, hence the term encyclopedia. This just appears to be taking an unnecessary interpretation of the rules and enforcing them to weaken the article and strip nearly all useful information about the new, known features. Units are the core of the gameplay; they're every much a part of the game mechanics as anything else and deserve the same attention. If mentioning specific units is non-encyclopedic, then so is almost everything else in every video game (and board game, and card game, and tileset game) article on this website. This section is supposed to detail the changes; someone who doesn't know about StarCraft II already but has played the original will gain next-to-nothing about the game, just that "some units do this and that, but we won't tell you what." Why is there such a bias against providing very useful information about video games on this website? bob rulz 14:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Turn it around and ask yourself: what is there to gain from using actual unit names? So far, the section identifies key changes in the gameplay of StarCraft through new unit abilities and environmental interaction. Apart from those released on the Blizzard site and mentioned in the video demonstration, we don't know what the units are. There's little to inform to readers when there's little information to begin with. There's a lot about StarCraft II that we don't know about, and we shouldn't attempt to make things certain before more information is released. --Scottie_theNerd 14:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to say I agree with Bob, I think the article is in danger of becoming piecemeal and second-rate with all the sacrifices that have been made for the word 'encyclopedic'. Sure, we absolutely want it to be a reliable source of information, but we want it to be useful too, right? Let's take some risks with information, and not take the rules too seriously. JMalky 15:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe the unit names were removed because they were too technical (see discussion above). For the most part, game articles usually don't need to refer to specific units - more often what they are capable of is more notable of mention. I'm all for including specific examples, but not at this stage. You can argue about Wikipedia being useful, but unit names are not useful to us this early in development. --Scottie_theNerd 15:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The basic thought is that aside from fans of the original StarCraft, no one will care about unit names. People have thought this for a long time, in a lot of different contexts, and have made up things like WP:NOT because of it. That fans of the original StarCraft find this article lacking information is not strange. It is the nature of an encyclopaedia. A molecular biologist will find the featured article DNA lacking information, too.

The nature (part of the free culture movement) and medium (internet) of this website means that one will find more video game fans among the readers than molecular biologists. This does not mean video game articles are significantly more "wrong" than those in other areas. There are just more people to complain about them. For the same reason Wikipedia does not include more detail about feminism in the US than feminism in Iran (though a multitude of its users are US citizens), and for the same reason Wikipedia does not include more detail on the English language than on the Turkish language, Wikipedia does not include more information than necessary on video games than on any other hobby. (Football, for example)

I agree that the current article needs some tweaking. The units subsection clearly shows that it was first written with unit names included, and that those names were later replaced by generic terms. This can be easily solved by rewriting some sentences, and merging some in particular. --User:Krator (t c) 18:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

There, how's that? Did some tweaking, made it so that the features itself were mentioned and explained, along with their purpose, but removed all implications that unit knowledge needed to be applied to comprehend the paragraph. Floria L 18:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The current section is good - no, I dare say it is awesome. --User:Krator (t c) 19:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The Starcraft article is a featured article. It's well-detailed and informative. And Scottie, it contains unit names. This article is reasonable as-is, but is also increasingly vague and has quite a few omissions. I know there's a truckload of useful and relevant information, which isn't fan-cruft or crystal-ball speculation, which would really improve this page, and I'm sure I don't know the half of the info that's been released about this game. Krator, are you suggesting that certain sections of Wikipedia should be pruned so that it becomes more 'balanced'? You mention WP:NOT in your post, but remember that the first point on that article is 'Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia' (i.e. variations in the quantity of articles on various subjects aren't visible). On another note, I also get the feeling that many of the users who have contributed to the main article or made posts on this page are being dismissed as 'fans'. And their contributions are ignored or reverted, which doesn't make for a very happy Wikipedia. In short, I think this discussion page needs to lighten up! JMalky 22:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the point is, right now, that we don't have a balanced understanding of how the different units will play a role in the final gameplay - so it doesn't really make sense to go into any detail about them. You'll note that the units and structures it names are critical to gamplay, and balanced across the races. Right now, we basically have a big sack'o'trivia that Blizzard has released. --Haemo 22:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the point is that right now the units section is just difficult to read. It reads like someone trying to describe a vague dream they had: '....and there were things charging and rolling, exploding balls...and I saw things with jet-packs jumping over hills...big powerful units that there was only one of...' etc. Here is how I think it should be changed:

"StarCraft II will feature approximately the same number of units as the original game. Many units from the original game will return, but will feature upgrades which allow them different abilities or skills. For example, the close-combat Protoss Zealot can now "charge" to swiftly engage enemy units with ranged attacks, and Terran Marines can be upgraded to carry a shield. Other changes to unit design have been inspired by story events in StarCraft and its expansion, Brood War, replacing old units with new versions which sport different attributes and abilities.

The video demonstration also revealed new game mechanics that encourage more complex interaction with the environment. Among these are the inclusion of units that can traverse differing levels of terrain, and the capability of short-range teleportation to pursue fleeing enemies. The video also demonstrated the addition of a 'super-unit' to the game. This unit belongs to the Protoss, traditionally the most powerful race in Starcraft. Blizzard has stated that a player can only have one of these units at a time, and the other races will not have a similar unit."

A blizzard moderator confirmed that the shield is an upgrade for the marines on the battle.net forums. You can either cite that or give a similar example, but you can see the overall idea of what I suggest changing. jay 07:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't see it reading this way at all -- currently, it has very definite sentences, with fixed descriptions and precise wording. It tries to retain generality, while avoiding being vague. I think it does an excellent job. It also tries to avoid baffling a user who is unfamiliar with the original game; for instance, in your revision, what's a "Zealot" or a "Marine"? How would I know what those were without playing the original game? --Haemo 08:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've made my point and I'll leave it there. Like I say, the article is indeed fine, but just look at the edit history for the page, and count the number of reverted 'good faith' edits. JMalky 08:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Some people wouldn't be happy unless we listed every unit, and sourced it to the Gamefaq forums. I'm loathe to call people adding in material like the "unofficial release date" or info about unit "vandals"; but I'm not going to sit by and let them insert unencyclopedic content into the article. --Haemo 08:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The unit section as written now is even more impossibly vague and uninformative. I don't understand why listing unit names would be non-encyclopedic. It would certainly help fans of the original StarCraft to understand the new content better, and while people unfamiliar with StarCraft would not know what these units were, it doesn't provide them with any less information, and doesn't make it any harder for them to understand. If you said "one unit has been provided with the ability to charge in on nearby units", it wouldn't be any different to the unknowing reader than "the Zealot melee combat unit has been given the ability to charge in on nearby units," but in addition to not hindering comprehension of the unknowing reader, it would also greatly help one who is familiar with StarCraft. I have a huge problem with how it's written now. How could someone not have a problem with this sentence: "The video demonstration also suggests the existence of powerful units that posses a wide range of abilities, allowing more versatile gameplay." It is impossibly vague, unspecific, and helpful to neither the unfamiliar reader nor one who is familiar with StarCraft. It does absolutely no harm to name specific unit names, and knowing about the original StarCraft wouldn't matter in this case anyway. "A certain unit" merely serves as a substitute for that specific unit name, but in the grand scheme of things, one is more informative than the other, yet they mean the same thing.

Here are a few other specific passages I have problems with:

"Among these include the inclusion of jetpacks that allow all-terrain altercation and capabilities of short-range teleportation to pursue fleeing enemies."

So is this saying that some units can have a jetpack upgrade that allows them to leap over cliffs? Is this just one unit, or multiple ones? Is it an upgrade, or an inherent ability? A new unit? Or an old unit with a new ability? Same with the short-range teleportation ability.

"Newly enhanced building structures enable units to be deployed instantly into combat areas." So wait, any of the races can do this? Two of the races? One of the races? You can do this with any building? Or just specific ones? You mean it allows any unit anywhere to be deployed to the battlefield? Or is there something more specific that it doesn't mention?

"The video demonstration also suggests the existence of powerful units that posses a wide range of abilities, allowing more versatile gameplay."

Don't even get me started on this.

"Many units from the original game will return, but feature upgrades which allow them different abilities or skills, such as "charging" to swiftly engage enemy units with ranged attacks or evolving into new kinds of units, such as a "rolling bomb"."

So are these unit-specific abilities? Or do multiple units have these abilities?

etc. etc. etc.

The units section as it stands is just uninformative. We're striving so hard to please one who is unfamilir with StarCraft that we haven't even noticed that it's not informative to anybody. I don't think it would help one who doesn't know the original. I also don't think that naming specific units would hinder the knowledge of one who doesn't know the original, either. They can look it up for themselves if they have the unit name, for one. But for another, it's the same to say "the Protoss Zealot" as it is to say "a certain unit." Units are perhaps the key element of RTS games, yet people are so willing to just cast aside describing units as fancruft. bob rulz 18:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The point being, we don't know what's going to be in the game. In my opinion, that whole section needs to be excised from the article based on WP:V and WP:CRYSTAL. Any or all of those "features" could change between now and the game's release. Too many people are over-analyzing some videos made of a game that isn't even in beta yet. That entire section is speculation. -- Kesh 19:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

No, no one knows what will be in the game, because it's far from being finalized, WP:CRYSTAL states we shouldn't presume what things are going to be. We can state what others have said will be in the game, as per WP:V McKay 20:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Has Blizzard said they'll be in the game? I don't think you'll find a definitive statement about that on any of the units, outside of speculative articles & forum posts. It's very much the realm of WP:CRYSTAL right now. -- Kesh 00:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The answer to virtually all your questions is we don't know. We don't know if just one unit will be able to use jet packs, or if multiple will. We don't know if only Zerglings will turn into rolling bombs. We don't know if only Protoss can teleport their units, or if everyone can. We don't know. We can't give any more information than what is in the article right now, without becoming overly specific, or making unfounded generalizations. --Haemo 21:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• I think the term 'jetpacks' should be removed...the actual way the unit moves over differing levels of terrain isn't important, its the fact that certain units are now able to do it.
• I think this sentence should be removed: "The video demonstration also suggests the existence of powerful units that posses a wide range of abilities, allowing more versatile gameplay." It is just too vague, and not even correct...the mothership has 3 abilities, not a 'wide range' of them. jay 23:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Under that logic we might as well just get rid of the whole article, because we don't technically know if the game is going to be released yet. Or we could just blank the page, because we don't know if anything on here is finalized. bob rulz 01:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that doesn't follow. The game has been announced for release, which satisfies WP:V. What doesn't satisfy it is the rampant speculation over which units will be in the final game, which abilities they will have, etc. until either 1) Blizzard releases that information themselves or 2) the game comes out. Otherwise, it's like speculating that a specific scene from a book will make it into the movie version. Things get edited, and the game is still very far from release. It wouldn't be the first time I've seen companies release in-game video, only to have units portrayed there unavailable and/or completely changed in ability in the final game. -- Kesh 01:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Then Delete everything except for the history of starcraft since everything that has been Demonstrated at WWI will be different when the game gets released in about a year from now.NOTHING that is written here will be correct by the time the game is released.89.160.65.215 01:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

As I pointed out, we can document things that Blizzard has stated will be part of the new game. Overanalyzing a few videos released does not do that. This argument is rapidly becoming a farce. -- Kesh 01:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Is this proof enough? Yeah, it's not all of the new ones that they've mentioned, but, oh hey, it's the official website! And it may be true that it could change, but do we have to go under that assumption? We are stating what we know. Sure, we don't know that it won't change, but we also don't know that it will. This is all of the information that's been released. Whether it changes or not is irrelevant. We should go under the assumption that they will be in the game, since Blizzard has specifically mentioned them, and if at some point they say that certain units that they have previously mentioned will not be in the game, then we can remove them. What could possibly be the harm in doing it that way? Hell, I don't see how you couldn't be satisfied by something like "these have only been shown in a video demonstration and have not officially been confirmed that they will be in the final version of the game" or something along those lines. bob rulz 02:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that statement strikes me as weasel words, admitting that this is all speculation. I don't see it as encyclopedic at all.

Honestly, I don't understand why the article should have a list of units in the first place. Starcraft doesn't. Why should the article about its sequel? -- Kesh 03:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The point is that it's impossible to give a balanced impression of the units in the game, or how they feature, at this point in time; something which an encyclopedia is supposed to do. We're not supposed to document all the units, and we're not going to - that for fan sites to take up. Rather, we're trying to explain the gameplay of the game; and we currently don't have enough information about that to explain the units in any cogent or balanced manner. --Haemo 03:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Remove everything but the history page, since Blizzard's only official statement is what is displayed on Starcraft2.com and that the video itself cannot be used since too high variation of speculations can be made out of it, Blizzard said themselfs that nothing on the video was FINAL this has to mean that the content will change when it is released, thinking it would mean anything else would be speculation. Delete the whole article now! 89.160.65.215 02:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Can we stop with the frantic sky-is-falling arm waving now, please? You're not helping yourself any. -- Kesh 03:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Obviously you guys are missing the point I'm trying to make. I'm not talking about creating a list of all of the units. I'm talking about "new features." It is important to note the differences between the first game and the second game...I don't think it's speculation that these units will appear in the game. Sure, it may not happen, but Blizzard was the one that announced this. bob rulz 09:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

We don't know what the new features are. That's the point. Blizzard hasn't announced anything except 1) Starcraft 2 is coming out, 2) the only playable races are Humans, Protoss and Zerg. They've not announced any specific units, nor abilities, that will be in the game. Thus, there's nothing to note. -- Kesh 18:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not strictly true... There are three units and a building listed on StarCraft2.com (which should be considered a reliable source: it's the game's page, made by Blizzard). However, other than the fact that there are new units and new abilities, I don't think we need to go into too much detail about those units. If someone's interested in what specific new units and abilities will be available, there are links to the trailers and fansites.

Besides, new units and abilities are not the only new things about the game. We used to have a lot more about units, and that section dominated the article. It looks a lot better now: more balanced between units, other gameplay, and its stage of development. We don't need much more about units, especially this early in development. Nimelennar 00:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I would accept the rewrite posted by Jay above. It's easily the best rewrite I've seen yet; it's informative, it's non-ambiguous, and it doesn't go into too much detail. My point now is that, while we don't need to go into that much detail about the units, the way it's written now is not very informative. I'm not saying that we have to describe all of the new features that have been announced...we just have to make it useful and informative, and it's not right now, to either newcomers or long-time fans of StarCraft. bob rulz 06:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

List of revealed units should be readded

I was searching some old revisions of this article, and the lack of the information describing each new revealed unit in the current revision doesn't seem right. I say this information should be reinstated.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Shimdidly (talk • contribs) 03:57, June 13, 2007

You should look at the archived discussion pages. jay 03:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Because, boy howdy, have we pretty much unanimously rejected this -- as have guidelines per WikiProject Videogames. --Haemo 04:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Noted Old Race

It's noted in the article that "Factions from the first game, like the Xel'Naga and the Terran Dominion will also be featured in the game.". The Xel'Naga were never a playable race in the first version of the game they were just part of the mentioned history. If you follow the link, to the Xel'Naga page, you will probablly find that out. Can someone please yell at whoever did this and change Xel'Naga to Protoss or Zerg. I thank you. Althalitus 08:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

A "faction" is an organisation, which the Xel'Naga certainly is in one form or another. The statement does not imply that the Xel'Naga were a playable faction in the first game, nor does it suggest they are playable in StarCraft II; rather, the statement simply asserts that the Xel'Naga are featured.

A good point to note, however, is that the Xel'Naga weren't featured in StarCraft either; they were mentioned to often but never seen in any shape. --Scottie_theNerd 08:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

...Unless you count the Protoss and Zerg, who were by-products of the Xel'Naga quest for purity of Form and Purity of Essence; or Unless you count Brood War, which introduced the the Xel'nagan temple on Shakuras. I suppose you could count Duran in there as well, but is not a confirmed Xel'nagan (yet), so that be the only introduced evidence. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It still seems like you have it as a playable faction to anyone who can not work out the previous logic. Just change it to avoid confusion.Althalitus 04:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

New Data

I don't want to screw up the page, but new footage of the game has been released here, so anyone who wants to analyze it and add the info...yeah. The Clawed One 20:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Youtube is not a reliable source. If possible, reference the actual video used by PC Gamer. --Scottie_theNerd 20:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I know, I said I didn't want to screw up the page, hence why I chose to post this and let others decipher it. The Clawed One 21:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Keyword being "decipher." Let's not wade into this morass of speculation again. -- Kesh 00:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Tt is mentioned to be in PC Gamer, so there's a source. But then, nevermind. Excuse me to supplying new information. In the future I'll keep my mouth shut. The Clawed One 00:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that it looks like this is all the was released by PC Gamer. We can't really do very much with this, other than list unit names -- something we've already decided against doing in the article. --Haemo 00:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to the original post. The new info is appreciated. PC Gamer's issue is due out in the next couple of months. I presume that the infighting will settle down once the magazine's article actually states what we saw in the leaked video. Of course I'm refering to mechanics/gameplay data and not a unit list. So please wiki-enforcers, don't give me the pimp slap. 76.192.216.61 01:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

PC gamer magazine scan here and here. I did not scan this. The credit goes to whoever scanned it. --SkyWalker 11:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Is anyone gonna use this. And thanks, the links are quite interesting!