Talk:World in Conflict/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2

Characters section

I disagree with the deletion of the characters section, even though it was a stub. I'd like to see it be put back in, and for the officer in charge of your troops in the Tutorial to be included in it. --Safe-Keeper 16:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Same here. It's necessary for the article as it contributes to the story in a greater detail. That brings me to my second point, we need to write a plot synopsis(or whatever the correct term is). This game is all about the story. Essesense 16:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree as well, there is a need for the characters section, it provides a background for the game. I mean other game articles have game characters, why not this article?? as for plot, we already have one. I think we should debate whether or not to add the spoiler ending and the in-game storyline not seen unless the whole game is played
(Kliu1 11:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC))
Other articles have plots lined out, as do almost all movie articles, so why not this one? And we now currently have two sentences in the Plot section. It might just be me, but that's not enough. :D I'll try and get around writing something decent(I fail horribly at writing long, long paragraphs) this week. Essesense 18:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
well you know i actually put alot of information but Warthog32 deleted 99% of the entire plot section. The plot that i put on there didn't violate copyright. (Kliu1 22:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC))
I agree, the characters of the singleplayer champain are critical to the information provided. Maybe il 'start' on it. Oh, and happy new year. --Mazman34340 (talk) 02:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Xbox 360?

Can anyone give me the source for it coming out on the 360, I thought it was a PC exclusive and the current source only says it's for the PC. 01:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

yes im the one that put xbox 360 on the platform list here is the source

List of Tactical Aids

Should there be a list of TAs in the article? I found the whole list in German, with point costs for various roles:

[List of Tactical Aids] (in German)

I'll throw together a full list later tonight, along with a unit list. Somebody else can sort and post it in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

There shouldn't be a list of TA's in the article, i tried that once like a few weeks ago with a list, it got taken out time and time again. Then i found out wikipedia rules. Its not a game manual. doesn't matter if you think its good information. It shouldn't be on here. (Kliu1 22:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC))

besides, adding costs is going to be difficult, as different TA strikes cost different ammounts for the four playing clases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

There should absolutely not be a list of TAs in the article. Wikipedia is not a game guide. OliAtlason (talk) 23:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


I've been reading through WiC forums and there have been a fair few criticisms in regards to gameplay, probably worth having a section on it. I'll start doing one, comments would be appreciated.

Most of the people I know who've played it love it. It's just a different type of strategy than most are used to —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean the fact that some units don't accurately represent their real life counterparts? I can't think of any specific ones off hand. Dr1v3thru 06:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I think perhaps the criticisms should only be put in place if like, game industry people criticise it officially. It would be better that way. (Kliu1 22:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC))

I have so far read a good portion of fan criticism in Gamespot, and fans seem to be pointing out the cliché ridden story (starting from the decades old premise of a soviet invasion) and because it was advertised as an RTS even though theres little of RTS in it to begin with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Speaking from experience from another game, you probably don't want to include either criticisms or accolades in this article. Keep it factual. The fact is, that criticisms are almost limitless. Listing them all and prioritizing them can completely dominate an article, and cause many wars about what is truthful and important. Compliments can be the same way, and can easily slant the article into becoming and advertisement.
As long as you are describing features of the game, you can do it in a factual and very verifiable manner and do justice to the game and readers. As soon as you start comparing the game to other games, or describing what the game "should" or "shouldn't" be, you open a bottomless can of worms.
And once a precedent is set, you'll find it very difficult to remove criticisms from an article without very heated debates in the talk forum...
Warthog32 23:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, criticisms shouldn't be here on wikipedia. They deserve to be debated in game forums and online chat. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a debating forum.

(Kliu1 11:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC))

Genre (change to RTT)

The genre should really be changed to Real Time Tactics, as this game has no base contruction and the bare minimum of resource management, both defining characteristics of RTS. I haven't changed anything yet, but if no one has any objections I will. 03:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree it should be RTT, but no one's yet officially called it that that I'm aware of. If another one or two people agree, then we can change it. · AndonicO Talk 10:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
In an interview a Massive employee said "Internally we sometimes call it RTT--real-time tactics." [1]. I wouldn't mind myself if it was changed. - TexMurphy 11:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
No it does not need to be changed. RTS need not always be base building or collecting resource. Lot of things have changed in RTS. Even the developers states that this is RTS. So there is no need to change it to RTT. --SkyWalker 14:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Look at the articles for Real-time strategy and Real-time tactics and the games referenced in those articles. Even Ground Control, a game made by the same company as WiC with many of the same ideas, is cited as an example of RTT. From the article on RTT:

"Using the common definition, Real-time strategy games are characterised by the fact that the player exerts direct control over individual units, resource gathering, base and unit construction and technology development, micro-managing a complete albeit stylised production economy, as well as a likewise generally simplified and stylised combat model that generally bears little resemblance to actual military tactics...whereas real-time tactics games, in their pure form, do not feature resource-gathering, production, base-building or economic management, instead focusing on tactical and operational aspects of warfare such as unit formations or the exploitation of terrain for tactical advantage."

I think its clear that WiC fits this RTT mold much more closely than it does RTS. 23:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Alright, since discussion seems to have stopped for now, I'm making the change. 23:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I believe that it should currently still be an RTS, as the awards it received were under best strategy game, its trailers contained "the most intense strategy game ever created", i think we should only change it once its been confirmed by its release on the 18th (Kliu1 00:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC))
RTT still qualifies as strategy. · AndonicO Talk 00:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, its just strategy that focuses more on unit management and less on economy or base management. If you look at other example of RTT, I think you will find that they are far from devoid of strategy 02:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Apparently GameReplays forum users reached a similar conclusion: · AndonicO Talk 02:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the genre to RTT in the article, using the interview with Nicklas Cederstrom as a source. · AndonicO Talk 02:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
The correct definition must be a generally recognized authority on the matter. Otherwise it is original research. None of the developers are impartial _or_ a recognized authority, so citing their oppinion as fact is not reasonable. Instead, cite it as an oppinion, and stick with the genre that both Gamespy/IGN as well as Metacritic uses - RTS. RTT may have a wikipedia page of it's own, but that page cites more than 70 games as real time tactics and only lists 11 sources on the entirety of the page. All sources are, further, no more than 2 years old, and untill we see sources that the way of wording this genre is leaving a lasting mark, there is no relevance to using it. And unless a genre is well known in the first place, citing it in the introduction is plainly confusing. Finally, the wikipage is clearly unrealiable in the context of defining RTT, and so in this situation, we should rely on direct outside sources. 01:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
How is the article unclear about defining RTT? The article gives a very good and clear definition--much clearer than the RTS article. Secondly, the term RTS was coined by Brett Sperry [2], a developer at Westwood. How is he more of an impartial or recognized authority than Nicklas Cederstrom? SharkD 18:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
just to say, this conversation ended a long time ago. Officially its an RTS game, but we also put in the article that many like to refer to it as an RTT game. Until the game developers change it officially, its going to stay an RTS game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kliu1 (talkcontribs) 00:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no such genre as "RTT" so maybe you all should shut the fuck up, kay? -- (talk) 06:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:CIVIL. RTT does exist, but games such as WiC are marketed as RTS because more people have heard of RTS games than RTT ones, and therefore they are more likely to sell well. · AndonicO Talk 13:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Collectors edition

do you have to preorder to get that too?Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 21:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Stock is extremely limited for the collectors edition, most likely you will have to order it or preorder it. I've preordered my collectors edition and i asked the guys at the shops, they said stock is limited, thus i still havn't gotten mine. And i preordered on the 1st of July. (Kliu1 22:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC))

I guess it depends on where you live. I can go into an electronics store around here and they have about 8 copies or so left in Collector's Edition. It's how I bought my copy when I found out about this game almost a month after it came out. No I didn't preorder, just need to be in the right store. 00:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it is excessive to have three pictures of "Collector's edition" material. Thoughts ? OliAtlason (talk) 20:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Online accounts

Are they really "based on Battlefield 2"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

yes, they are based on Battlefield 2, as they have awards, medals etc. and in game stats. (Kliu1 10:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC))

alt. history channel bundle?

I purchased a copy at Circuit City as retail and not part of a pre-order and it came with a DVD of Heroes Under Fire : Shadow Warriors, I don't see anything listed about this on any website as being bundled with the game, it mentions nothing of it on the official website nor circuit city's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Free2game (talkcontribs) 06:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, perhaps they ran out of DVDs or they used the wrong one. Officially the DVD everyone gets is the ones that is stated on wikipedia and on the official world in conflict website. (Kliu1 22:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC))

What the ****

Has someone decided that no-one can edit the Missions section, because there is already something wrong with it. I-95 is the interstate road running up and down the East Coast. I-90 is an interstate road going along the northern US, Starting in Seattle, Washington and ending in Boston, Massachusetts. Now, does someone want to unlock editing for the mission section to fix any future mistakes they might make? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps they may release a patch to patch up the mistakes they may have made on the single player missions. Don't expect too much. (Kliu1 22:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC))

Im not talking about the game. I talking about whoever wrote the article on the missions under the plot section. It was un-editable last time I checked

Oh, my bad. Its gone now isn't it? someone removed the whole thing saying that wikipedia isn't a game guide, which is true. (Kliu1 00:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC))

I don't though see how describing the game's story is wikipedia being a game guide? Essesense 03:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The stuff some other guy put on wasn't describing the game's story, he basically put all the missions on wikipedia and in full detail as well. Wikipedia is not a game guide. (Kliu1 06:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC))

I removed the missions per policy. --MrStalker talk 16:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't help but wonder about the source of the remaining text in the Plot section, and question if might not have some copyright issues. It also seems way overboard for setting the game background for a casual reader. Warthog32 23:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

the plot was from the game booklet. They didn't copyright it, so it shouldn't be an issue. And its not overboard, its gives a description of the events of the game. (Kliu1 11:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC))

Of course they have a copyright on it, and it is an issue. Wikipedia is very clear on this matter. Look at the text below the edit box. "Content that violates any copyright will be deleted." and below that "Do not copy text from other sources without GFDL-compatible licenses.". This text must be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Warthog32 (talkcontribs) 17:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
everything is an issue with you. Its not copyrighted! I'm gonna redo the plot. Changing it so it wont be under your "copyright". OK????? (Kliu1 22:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC))
First, please don't try personal attacks with me. They won't work to your advantage. We can discuss this without hostility can't we? As this is the only issue I've ever addressed copyrights with you, I'm not even sure where this is coming from. I can see from your talk page you've had other copyright issues, so I suspect you've mistaken me for someone else.
But to get back to the issue at hand. This material was written by the developers and very clearly declared in the license with Massive Entertainment holding the copyright. This is very clearly the property of Massive Entertainment, and copying it is very clearly both illegal and subject to intellectual property damage claims by Massive. I'm sorry, it must be removed. This section can easily be written with editors own words.
Editing the text to "personalize it" is still considered a violation of copyright law, and common recognition of plagiarism. If you want to improve this section, do it in your own words.
Warthog32 23:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
For your information the last plot that you actually deleted was made by me, in my own words. I may admit my first plot was plagiarism, but this last one was not. And copyright issues on my talk page were only of photos that i uploaded, they were solved. And i didn't suspect you for other copyright issues. The final plot was in my own words, i spent like an hour on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kliu1 (talkcontribs) 00:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, I apologize for the last revert, I thought it was the same text as the prior. Thanks for taking the time to write the section. Warthog32 03:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
First of all LOL from your arguing. Is it okay to have the tactical points section up because I sortof put in some tips. Plz dont delete the entire thing but only things like "infantry can escape". --Mazman34340 (talk) 03:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Multiplayer activity

How active is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

How active is what? please explain in further detail so i can give you more information. Thanks. (Kliu1 10:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC))

It's active. Active enough that you won't have a hard time gettting into an 8v8 match. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Were not supposed to give away gaming tips but there are always 8v8 matches available. Its a game with good reviews and its realatively new so its very popular. --Mazman34340 (talk) 03:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Spoiler tag

A section called "Plot" can be expected to contain details about the plot. In fact, I can't see how it can be expected to contain anything else. As Wikipedia:Spoiler says, spoiler warnings "Often [...] won't be necessary at all if the article is well-structured." Therefore, I have removed the warning as redundant. Note also that as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is supposed to contain spoilers, see also the Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. Kusma (talk) 11:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course it contains spoilers, thats the whole point. But what i'm trying to say is that some people might just want to look at the brief introduction, not the whole thing as some might just want to see that the storyline to understand what the game is about and may decide to buy the game to find out the rest for themselves. I think there is a need to put a warning up there saying that it contains spoilers, i mean its not going to do any harm to anyone, it only helps improve the article. I'll separate it out so that the intro is seperate from the rest. Thanks. (Kliu1 12:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC))

I agree strongly and have a major problem with people's interpretation of Wikipedia:Spoiler for this very reason. I suggest a revert. SharkD 02:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

wouldnt this game be banned in china?

Wouldn't this game banned in China since it kind of demonizes communism and their country a little bit?--Dark paladin x 20:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

China is not even mentioned. Does it matter if china bans this game?. --SkyWalker 21:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
China is mentioned, as an ally of the Soviet Union and was going to attack the US. This is against their censorship, I mean i remember when Command and conquer generals came out, China banned it because it depicted the Chinese in the wrong way. So it should be banned, but we should wait for more information, I'll try to found out since I can speak and read chinese. I aint chinese btw. i'm a proud Taiwanese. --(Kliu1 22:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC))
I see. I did not know china was in the game. I only know that china is not playable is that right?. Why did they mention china in first place?. --SkyWalker 07:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, China is in the game, but not playable. However the way the Chinese are acting in the game would prompt it to be depicting the Chinese in the wrong way. So the chinese govt might not let it be sold in China. Whats the point of this whole thing anyway??? I mean if it isn't going to be sold in China all we have to remove is 10 words from the article. LOL. (Kliu1 22:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC))
You know, the game has left room for expansion. There might be an expansion pack with a chinease faction and another single player champain but that is my speculation. --Mazman34340 (talk) 03:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually popular speculation is that there will be an expansion/sequel to WiC, and that the Chinese WILL be playable, while none of the game devs have confirmed or denied it, it is a definite posiibility. Here is the link if you are interested. WiC official forums —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mooseberry (talkcontribs) 20:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
There are a few players in China. The Massgate web-site allows you to see where players are, and quite a few are in China. I assume, therefore, that they bought the game in China (although this is possible even if a game is banned). The Chinese name is 衝突世界 (or 冲突世界). —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism on this article

Recently there has been alot of vandalism on this article, just yesterday someone removed half the article and took me some time puttin it back together. I think there is need for this article to be protected in some way, to save the people who are doin the right thing from this problem. (Kliu1 21:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC))

If you have notepad, use it and copy and paste your text into it. Then save it as wiki notes so if someone wrongly deletes part of your article you can paste it back. --Mazman34340 (talk) 03:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Special Edition USA

Cloth box.

One side is soviet flag with WORLD IN "CONCLICT collectors edition" in russian. Other side is the American Flag with "WORLD IN CONFLICT collectors edition" in english.

Donno if its worth editing or updating, o well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I already added that in, i was planning to add that in before, but i wasn't sure. since u put this on here, i decided to add it. (Kliu1 04:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC))
My pack came with the fall of the wall DVD from the history channel. Very informative. --Mazman34340 (talk) 03:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Negative User Reception

I believe that negative reception shouldn't be placed on this article. If it is placed on there, it makes the entire article look bad. I mean all we should do is place positive reception. I also don't believe user reception should be on wikipedia, only worthy reception from game industry people like gaming websites, gaming magazines etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kliu1 (talkcontribs) 04:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

You're right, it doesn't belong. I removed it entirely from the article. - TexMurphy 07:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
You are NOT RIGHT. Wikipedia is not about gloating, it is about reporting. Check any other game wiki, you won't see it look like a huge advertisment for the game. If you included so many awards and accolades, then it should also be noted that not everyone feels this way. For example myself, and others who have bought the game, were hugely disappointed. It is more over-rated than Grand Theft Auto 4. If you consider user-reviews not good enough, I ask you WHY! Gamers do not get paid, or bribed by publishers to only write good things like "professionals" from gamespot or g4 do. If you want a popular site to note its CONSIDERABLE downfalls, then FINE, I will find one. But please do not edit it out you poor pathetic losers. GET a life. Get a girlfriend. Or at the very least go play some decent games. Thankyou —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fly05 (talkcontribs) 22:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a game wiki as you imply. Not everyone likes every game, but the article talks about the general reception of the game which has been very positive. A few user reviews are not a reliable source. Please back up your accusations of cited reviewers being bribed. Furthermore, be civil. - TexMurphy (talk) 07:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

As an encyclopedia entry this article should cover all aspects of the World in conflict game. There has been negative reception in the user community and that aspect of the game's reception absolutely has a place. Stop censoring the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

the user community is not a game industry official or important member of the game industry. I mean its important, but wikipedia is an encyclopedia. And we aren't censoring the truth. I know criticisms are important, but you have to at least gather a fair amount of criticism of the game to put it in wikipedia. I'm gonna ask other pplz to see what they think. (Kliu1 07:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC))
The "negative reception" consists of people with technical problems and to some minor extent balance issues, although most people agrees that the game is on the whole well balanced. Balance is an ongoing process in any multiplayer game and will continue to be tweaked. Technical problems have probably existed in every game ever released. The amount of technical problems are not extraordinary compared to other games, most buyers experience no or very little technical problems. User communities are not a good source since most people have a biased opinion based on their own experience which would lead us away from Wikipedia's policy of neutral point of view. Find a reliable and neutral source for the criticism, then it would have a place. - TexMurphy 09:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with TexMurphy (Kliu1 21:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC))

Major Changes To The Plot

It's been recently that many people have been changing the plot, some changing part of it, while some changing the entire thing to suit their views of the game. Recently the last edit before i reverted it, it was full of unnecessary links such as a naval base, which is not featured in game or unverifiable, also some important parts of the plot had been taken out such as the reason for the Soviet attacks, etc. If there is to be major changes please at least discuss it here, where the community will agree on whether or not to permit these changes and whether or not these are necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kliu1 (talkcontribs) 20:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

This was a neutral change to the article, no view other than what is available to players of the game has been represented. All of my edits to the article can be verified from the in-game materials. Grammar edits were needed for better clarity and certain details, such as the reasons for the Soviet attacks, were summarized or, where redundant, left out in an effort to keep the article from violating Wikipedia article policy. Personal information, such as Colonel Sawyer's "crisis of conscience" during the war or Bannon's reference of guilt can be placed in a characters section if anyone is willing to start one (did he really have 'pangs of conscience' for the rest of his life?). Other information such as the Spetsnaz occupation of Liberty Island or the real reason for the defense of Fort Teller were added in as important plot points. The naval base at Norfolk is an educated guess as to the actual target since it is referred to only as "Norfolk" in the cinematic describing the aftermath of the Murmansk operation in the game. The painted still showing Soviet subs launching an attack on what appear to be military ships in harbor lend some credence to this. I have reverted the article back to my previous edit for these reasons.Voracious Reader 14:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


Is it alright if I add a unit section with pictures and some stats?Wil101 17:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

what sort of pictures? and what kind of stats? (Kliu1 09:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC))

like some of the units, TA planes, etc. Not so sure about stats though, seeing as there is no officialy published statistics sheet. I could list TA costs, what it does, special abilities, what it costs to call it in, things of that nature.Wil101 23:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
lol..., i did that last time, but didn't work. Its against the rules of wikipedia. and i learnt that the hard way. Wikipedia aint a game guide, lists of TAs and stats are counted as a game guide sort of thing, its the things you'd see in a brady or prima guide. so yea. I'd say no, cauz even if u try, ppl will take it off and you'll most likely get pissed. So yea. No units and ta planes plz. Thx (Kliu1 07:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC))

System requirements

Are the requirements listed the bare minimums that Microsoft lists on the box, or are they what's needed to run the game smoothly? If the former, what would be recommended from the gaming community (if I wanted to get the very best from the game)? Octane [improve me] 29.10.07 1603 (UTC)

The requirements listed are the minimum system requirements that is listed on the game box. Recommended requirements aren't currently on there, but i will ask around to see if it should be up there, meanwhile they are here: CPU: 2.5GHZ or faster, RAM: 1024MB (1.5GB for Windows Vista), Graphics Card: 256MB Video RAM Direct X 9.0c or above compatible, DX9 Graphics Card: Nvidia Geforce 7600GT and above, DX10 graphics card: Nvidia Geforce 8600GT and above. Hope this helps.(Kliu1 06:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC))

Skirmish Mode?

I see in the article content there is mention of a 'skirmish' mode which allows a player to pit him/herself against AI bots. Is this true? I see no evidence of this in the European release of the game, though I might be missing something. Is this feature available only for certain patches, or for certain releases of the game? The article should reflect this, if true. ColdmachineTalk 12:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

You just make a Local Area Network game of the mode "Player vs. Bots". I'm assuming you didn't look very hard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Information.svg Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. ColdmachineTalk 13:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Overreaction much? Thicken the skin a little. (talk) 13:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

In the words of Wikipedia himself: "LOL" —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

NPOV violation?

The Friendly AI also frequently gives hints and tips making the game too easy

Doesn't that sound somewhat biased? Legedevin (talk) 00:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course it does. Strike it and replace it with a properly attributed quote from a critic if it's necessary to the section. MrZaiustalk 17:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Article too long

This article really needs to be shortened and all irrelevant information removed. So, I added a too long tag at the top of the page. MastaFighta (talk) 23:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

  • The plot section could use some significant trimming. Legedevin (talk) 00:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, way too long. -- (talk) 10:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I've come up with a possible plot summary that satisfies the complaint of it being too long, but am a little afraid to post it. Based on the discusions further up, I fear that it will be reverted and someone will shout at me for "gutting" the plot summary. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 00:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I, with brute force and cheerful ignorance, have cut it down substantially while (I like to think) retaining the high points of the plot. (talk) 20:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I accept. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 07:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I've shortened the article somewhat, removing a significant amount of detail about game mechanics, unit types and so on. I also moved information around to make the article more readable, notably adding a reviews infobox and a system reqs infobox. The next step in increasing the quality of this article is to significantly cut the material on game modes. I hope no one takes offense at my rather bold removing of extraneous information. OliAtlason (talk) 23:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the plot section, it looks quite good as it is ! I made a couple of minor copyediting changes to it. OliAtlason (talk) 00:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


Are there any mods being written for this game ? If so, it would merit mention. OliAtlason (talk) 07:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC) Mod forum76.110.253.130 (talk) 05:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Significant changes

I've made some significant changes to the article recently. Most importantly, I have cut a lot of detailed information about gameplay, e.g. unit types, game modes, specifics of the multiplayer system and so on, and reorganized the gameplay section. It is now somewhat readable for someone who is interested in getting a general idea of what the game is about, although I still think that material could be cut without great loss. Remember, Wikipedia is not a game guide.

These changes are in addition to what I described above under Article too long. I think the article is at a point now where the quality cleanup and rewrite tags should be removed, which I have now done. Feel free to add them again if you disagree. OliAtlason (talk) 21:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Its when you cut too much information that I return, as a former 'constant editor' to this article. I say too much has been cut, remember we're trying to give information without becoming a game guide. Since I have the World in Conflict game guide, I know whats too much and too little. XD kliu1


China didnt invade Mongolia in the game, in fact Mongolia was a communist nation during the game's timeline and in real life until 1992, so that part of the article is highly inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I added the line in question. I was looking at the stripped lines and interpreted this to mean that Chinese troops and occupied Mongolia. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Soviet Assault

The release date for Soviet Assault has been announced as March 2009. The very top of the page needs to change. Red1530 (talk) 23:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

World in Conflict: Soviet Assault--SkyWalker (talk) 05:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Sabatier doesn't have a mistress

After playing the game twice and viewing all the cinematics, there is no indication whatsoever that the woman in the cinematic with Commandant Sabetier is his mistress. Note "Let me deal with the Russians first, then I'll deal with my wife." This woman is his wife and there shouldn't be any doubts about it.

Xnemesis (talk) 15:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Of corse she is a mistress. If she was really his wife, he would of stated then I'll deal with you. Red1530 (talk) 15:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Just reviewed the corresponding cinematic, the conversation was exactly like this: "Mistress": "You'll go back to your wife again right?" Sabatier: "Let me deal with the Russians first, then I'll deal with my wife." So in conclusion, yes, she is his mistress, she would not adress herself with "your wife". Gsmgm (talk) 19:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok I'm wrong through through the clearer statement should have been "I'm more afraid of my wife than the Reds."

Xnemesis (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Authentic??? A real peice of the Berlin Wall

I can't believe that the would put a real piece of the Berlin Wall in the special edition of the game. Now can someone tell me whether someone was just messing around or did they really put a piece of the Berlin wall in the special edition of the game?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sukhoi.pakfa (talkcontribs) 05:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it could have been better if you checked out the ref that came along with that info instead of you expressing your bewilderment here. --Eaglestorm (talk) 08:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
The reference and the evidence (since I have the collectors edition) proves that it is legitimate. Massive had pictures of them taking down bits of the Berlin Wall for the Collector's edition. kliu1 (talk) 11:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Genre debate again

According to various reliable sources [3]. WIC is an RTS not an RTT. The developers termed it has Action strategy in their forums [4]. So i wonder who brought out the term WIC is an RTT?. Please stick to WP: NPOV. So far many wikipedians are just proving their own pov. This is wrong. --SkyWalker (talk) 15:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

"So far many wikipedians are just proving their own pov. This is wrong. " I'll take that as a hint to me. No laddie, I didn't put my "own opinion" there. The article has stated for a long while that it was an RTT, and the article itself states "Tactical gameplay lacking base- and unit building is similar to real-time tactics (RTT) games, some of which feature intermittent reinforcements." and "In fact, the game's designers considered the game to be an RTT[4]."
See: [5]
[9] (doesn't really say much on whether it is or not; open to interpretation.--Spotty 11222 16:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
None of those are considered reliable. Except for the last. But still the amount of sources that say WIC is an RTS is much higher. Has i said the developers do not claim this game is an RTT but an Action-Strategy and Ubisoft press release states that it is an RTS. A genre can change overtime for example Dawn of War 2. According to GameReplay interview Grey says it has an "Action Strategy". So i think either the genre should be changed to RTS or Action Strategy. No one talks about WIC being RTT. It is just the community that says WIC is an RTT because it does not have base building. --SkyWalker (talk) 17:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Q?: What makes [10] reliable but not [11]( or any other ftm)?
Fine, if the majority of sources do say RTS, than change it. Although, I would recommend placing some sort of Note ref in the page that clarifies this for readers. --Spotty 11222 23:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

ERROR - Please Correct

"Reinforcements in the new edition can be called to the battlefield either by using the context menu or voice communication using the headset"

As Far as i know (i may be wrong), this feature was never implemented.

NPSF3000 (talk) 08:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you correct it yourself instead of telling us what to do? --Eaglestorm (talk) 02:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Corrected. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 14:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


Why is there a section for the Modern Warfare mod? We couldn't even keep the Eastern Front mod for Company of Heroes and yet this one exists? --Eaglestorm (talk) 06:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

It shouldn't. A quick look shows it has received very little in the way of coverage, and boasts only a few thousand users. People keep reinserting it, however. Whitecroc (talk) 10:47, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
It should. A quick look shows World in Conflict has very small online community left (less than 200 active), mod itself is the only one remaining being worked on. Company of Heroes is much larger franchise and situation is different there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blahdy21 (talkcontribs) 14:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
With only a few hundred users, it's simply not notable. Whitecroc (talk) 15:31, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Then World in Conflict page itself should be removed -- it's no longer notable. You're simply applying personal vendetta because you can't get your mod added to CoH page, which is a completely different situation with substantially larger user base in percentage. Within the WiC sphere, there are more WiCMW players (1,261 users -- not hundreds, check your eyeballs; over 120,349 total downloads) than there are WiC multiplayer users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blahdy21 (talkcontribs) 15:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
We are all editing in good faith here. The matter of the fact is that World in Conflict is a famous video game that sold hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of copies, and is therefore notable. The mod you are arguing to include in the article is known to a few thousand people at most, and therefore is not. Whitecroc (talk) 16:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
The mod is highly active in the game community, and the game developers (Massive) also wishes it to be known to all WiC players and those interested. It has distributed over 120,000 downloads. There is a difference between 'copies sold/downloaded' vs. 'ModDB followers'.Blahdy21 (talk) 17:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
So demonstrate this by finding some reliable sources. Show that it is notable with some third-party sources. At the moment, it comes across as self-promotion. Whitecroc (talk) 17:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
The fact that WiC MW is featured on World in Conflict official game launcher, the fact that Massive Entertainment themselves are posting threads and news on Massgate about it, the fact that there is community revolving around multiplayer and ModDB base, all count as reliable, 3-part sources to the fact that it is *fully* relevant to the World in Conflict community. YOU instead need to find and cite reliable sources as to how this is irrelevant to World in Conflict, instead of charging on blatant personal vendetta because the Eastern Front mod can't show up on CoH page.Blahdy21 (talk) 20:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
That is not how sourcing works. See WP:BURDEN. You need to motivate why this mod should appear on the page, as there are currently no citations showing its supposed popularity, nor its impact on the game itself. Developers highlighting game mods is far from uncommon; that does not mean that a particular mod is actually noteworthy. Also, please assume good faith; my alleged involvement with the Company of Heroes article is completely irrelevant, and I am perfectly willing to change my mind if you can demonstrate in some way that your inclusion is, in fact, notable.
I will admit to not being quite familiar with all of the rules here, or what to recommend, but I suggest you look at WP:V, WP:IRS and particularly WP:SOAPBOX. Whitecroc (talk) 21:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Drive by comment - Whitecroc is correct, in this case WP:BURDEN would apply. Some information has been added by an editor and removed by another. It is on the editor who wishes to include the information to ensure it is sourced using reliable sources to determine notability. Also note, notability is not temporary Cabe6403 (TalkSign) 08:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - as the editor who opened this discussion, I want to be uninvolved, but the other editor has already worn out everyone's patience here. I agree with Whitecroc and Cabe, if the mod should be in here, the guy who wants it in should provide proof, not dictate that certain people should put it in for them. Since nearly all of the editor's contributions has been focused on this game, it seems they're nothing more than SPAs.--Eaglestorm (talk) 09:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

WIC MW Proof of Notability

Over 16,000 downloads: Facebook page is not an indication of notability, downloads are. It has also been a #1 mod on ModDB (a website in the top 10,000 of the Alexa rank) on a number of occasions. For this reason, I am putting it back in the article. If you'd like to remove it, please respond to this post first (talk) 22:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Just to further show, here are page views:
And here you can see it is in ModDB's TOP 100 MODS OF THE YEAR 2012, as voted by users:
To say that this isn't noticable is contrary to all evidence. I hope that now you see how ridiculous it sounded to blahdy21
I do agree that the section needs work. So if you care about the article, try to help out! Make it a better section, but don't remove it. (talk) 22:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
None of that meets WP:N or WP:RS -- ferret (talk) 22:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Top 100 mods for 2 years in a row does.
And here is EVEN MORE evidence. Mentioned in multiple news posts on the news section of the official World in Conflict website: It is the only mod mentioned there. (the official WiC website) meets WP:RS.
ALSO, you'll note that if you actually read WP:N, it is about creation of articles, not sections of articles. Specifically mentioned here is that article contents fall under WP:DUE, which this mod meets over and over.
I am putting this back in again. In future if you want to remove it, ASK ON THE TALK PAGE BEFORE DOING SO. (talk) 14:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Uh. Not how it works. Look. Notability is not established outside of WIC itself. You have no reliable sources praising the mod or reviewing it. It's on a list user voted mod of the year, but user reviews are unreliable. If you can find some RELIABLE SOURCES that mention and cover the mod, we can include it. So far, that hasn't occured, and I will remove it again. The burden is on YOU to prove the content is notable before adding, not the reverse. Even if WP:N allows the content, it's STILL not reliably sourced, especially not for more than a bare mention. -- ferret (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

The typical way of handling this is what Ferret is getting at. Not download numbers or rankings, but on whether or not reliable sources are providing coverage on it or not. Please see WP:VG/S for many sources that are commonly considered reliable (or unreliable). Per WP:BRD and WP:BURDEN, the information should not be re-added until there is consensus to do so. Sergecross73 msg me 17:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on World in Conflict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:32, 2 July 2016 (UTC)