Talk:Deus Ex

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
↓ Skip to table of contents ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Deus Ex article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
Famicom style controller This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Portal:CVG
 CVG Portal
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article is on a subject of Mid priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
CVG To-do:
Good articles Deus Ex has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do.
If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.
Peer review Deus Ex has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
To-do list for Deus Ex: edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
  • This article needs more references for critical reception (print references would be nice), references on creation, references for the gameplay, references for everything. Warren Spector is a blabbermouth and this game always shows up on Best PC Games Evar lists, so it shouldn't be too hard to find references.
    • All of the existing refs need to be converted to use citation templates, like {{Cite web}}.
  • The critical reception section is a start, but needs more and needs print references.
  • There's essentially nothing on the development or creative process that led to this game.
  • The gameplay section needs more.
    • The multiplayer section isn't very good, but may be hard to reference.
  • The lit/pop culture references section needs to be referenced and summarized.


/Archive 1
/Archive 2
/Archive 3
/Archive 4
/Archive 5 - (1st GA review)
/Archive 6

Contents

[edit] Merges

Personally I think the tagged merges for organizations should be merged into a single "organizations of Deus Ex" article since this current main article is 57 kilobytes. What are other peoples suggestions as to what to do? Radagast83 18:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the factions all use a single page (just like the characters). - KingRaptor 13:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Normally I would agree with you. The only problem with that from what I can see is it might be hard to cram all the worthwhile info from the separate pages into one page of reasonable length. -- Grandpafootsoldier 20:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Much of the information on many of the pages seem to be mostly plot summary or character infomation. Infact, most of the characters should be on the major/minor character pages, and not in the organization pages once those are moved there isn't much left. Radagast83 04:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Hm, well if you think its possible go for it. That might remove a source for a lot of the constant bickering around here. -- Grandpafootsoldier 19:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Renomination time?

I think it's time we submit the article to Featured Article rank... it's very well written and... isn't bad. Should we? - ZFGokuSSJ1 19:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's worth trying to go for FA quite yet. There are still some elements this article still needs to pass that (specifically more references). It could be worthwhile to try for GA, however, though it might be a good idea to get a peer review first. -- Grandpafootsoldier 20:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I've submitted it for peer review. -- Grandpafootsoldier 19:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Great! -ZFGokuSSJ1 20:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
FA status is overrated rubbish. Why even bother? Gamer Junkie 22:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
So we can someday appear on the Main Page and become famous.
Personally, I'll be damned if Torchic makes frontpage and DX doesn't! - KingRaptor 01:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Spending time editing an online encyclopedia is probably not the best way to upgrade one's social status :) Personally, I'll be happy with a comprehensive article which is useful to those who take the time to look it up. Gamer Junkie 02:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

FA status is recognition that this article is one of the best and most comprehensive on Wikipedia. I definitely think that's worth striving for - especially as this game is one of the most kick-ass around and deserves the acknowledgment. The wealth and fame for us that go along with that are secondary ;) -- Grandpafootsoldier 19:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nuclear missile?

(Apologies if that has already been discussed - this page has quite a history.) Is the missile that JCD redirects at Area 51 really nuclear as stated in the article? I don't have the game installed at the moment so I can't check all the dialogues referring to it, but it seems unlikely to me that the missile is nuclear given that a) the site is very damaged but far from flattened; there is even still a tower standing, and b) JC picks up no radiations when he goes there straight after the impact. Thermaland 10:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It was probably a conventional IRBM. I've edited the article to just say "missile". - KingRaptor 10:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
It definitely wasn't nuclear, and considering most of the buildings were still standing, albeit badly damaged, and there were surviving troops on the surface after the detonation, the yield was likely also very low. I'd say it was a conventional cruise missile. It's a little strange actually. I'd be inclined to agree that it's an IRBM, although IRBM's are usually small enough to be housed in/on assorted portable launching systems. The missile looks more to the scale of a Peacekeeper MX, but with said rocket having a blast yield enough to level a city, the surface of Area 51 would've been little more than a smoking smudge. It could have been a Jupiter or a Redstone, but they've been obsolete for decades already let alone still active however many decades Deus Ex is set in the future. In any case, it wasn't nuclear. Gamer Junkie 11:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Come to think of it. I think I remember reading a file containing something about a Minuteman missile. The fact that it's supposed to stay active until at least 2025 and that its conventional warhead breaks up into smaller clusters before impact would fit the type of superficial damage caused to Area 51. People could even survive, provided they were lucky enough to be standing in the right place when it hit. Does anybody else remember reading something about this, or am I completely off the mark? Gamer Junkie 11:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it definitely is a nuclear missile. That is why I changed it to read that in the first place. As for evidence, first, as can be seen in this satellite pic you get in game at the start of the mission, most of Area 51 has been destroyed, and the only buildings left standing are on the very periphery of the base and/or are reinforced bunkers. There is no way a conventional warhead could do that much damage. Secondly, and most conclusively, it says here (scroll down a bit) that it is nuclear, and this is an approved "Continuity Bible" by the developers of the game. I'm changing the sentence back to read nuclear. -- Grandpafootsoldier 19:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Very well, we'll go with that, but now I know the developers messed up. As a former Air Force member, I can assure you that they don't make nuclear weapons that do as little damage as shown in that photo. The Peacemaker MX I was talking about earlier has twenty-five times the destructive power of the "Little Boy" model dropped on Hiroshima, and the Peacemaker isn't even in service anymore. Actually, I believe the "Little Boy" is the weakest nuclear weapon ever created, and that thing levelled an entire city. Besides, anybody that close to the blast who wasn't immediately vapourised would have melted to puddles of meaty pulp that close to a detonation. Since the soldier you find on the surface said that groups of them survived the blast and were actually alert and focused enough to launch a counterattack against Majestic 12's troopers, that's not very realistic. Not only that, but the power is still working on the surface, whereas all electronic equipment would have been completely destroyed following a nuclear detonation. Also, conventional ICBM's and IRBM's could do that much damage, and would actually do much more damage than that if it were a modern day rocket. The old-skool Redstone, Jupiter and Thor models would probably do that level of damage, but they'd be long gone by Deus Ex's time. Anyway, if that's what the developers said, I suppose we have to go with it. Gamer Junkie 00:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

What you say is probably true, but remember that Deus Ex is both fictional and is supposed to take place in the future, so there are a number of other factors you have take in to account. Since it is supposed to take place 50 odd years in the future, it could be some sort of very small yield nuclear device which hasn't yet been developed (I seem to recall hearing somewhere that the military was planning on developing such a missile to deal with the underground bunkers used by the Taliban in Afghanistan). Also, as I said before, the game map and that photo are of the very edge of a much larger base (remember that according to Jock and others there had been a lot of building going on over the past few years). As for the surviving soldiers, perhaps most of them had been underground when the blast occurred and had only come out a while before you arrived. Power could also possibly have been hooked back up from the main underground bunker. But this isn't really the place to be speculating on this kind of thing anyway. The developers said "nuclear" so we just have to go with that on the page. -- Grandpafootsoldier 05:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The "bunker busters" you mentioned are actually conventional warheads, tipped with depleted uranium, I believe. But in that photo, you can see the blackened central impact of the blast crater. Also, the soldier you speak with says that he was on the surface, because he mentions that he saw the "guys in black" come pouring out of the bunker doors and start shooting at the surviving soldiers. You also couldn't restore power, because an E.M.P. blast overloads and melts down the devices themselves, not just the object providing the power. You'd have to literally replace all electronic devices as well as the generator to have it function properly again. I'd say the developers are simply unfamiliar with information of a military nature. I guess that's why it's always a smart idea to contract a military advisor for such things. Gamer Junkie 06:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA again

Okay, I've renominated the page for GA. -- Grandpafootsoldier 08:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA on hold

Hi; I've placed the GA on hold, although it's fairly close. The refs should be referenced appropriately, without just providing a URL. Template:Cite web is a good way to do this. Aside from that, it looks good. It'll need more copy-editing, tweaking, and whatnot for FA status, but once those refs are fixed, it'll be passable for GA status for sure. — Deckiller 17:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, some of the images need Wikipedia:Fair use rationale. — Deckiller 18:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! I added a rationale for the box art image, I'm pretty sure it's the only one which needed it. I've also changed the reference format. Let me know if they are detailed enough now, or if I still need to add anything. -- Grandpafootsoldier 21:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice work. The only major issue I see with the referencing are lack of authors (especially in the reception references. If a source has an author, it's usually recommended in most situations that we cite the author. 65 through 67 need accessdates, as well. — Deckiller 21:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
By the way, this game looks great. — Deckiller 21:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it's always been one of my favorites ;)
Okay, I've added the dates and names to the refs. - Grandpafootsoldier 02:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Looks good, thanks. — Deckiller 03:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Hurrah! I come back from my first phase of Air Force training to see that my efforts were not in vain! Consequentially 22:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why did they cancel the movie

Perhaps we should add some details. Jamhaw 14:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)jamhaw

I don't believe they gave a specific reason. I can't say I'm overly disappointed, though. Judging by past attempts at video game-to-movie productions, it would have doubtless been quite shite. Gamer Junkie 15:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Game-to-film conversions have been pretty bad, but that's probably only because Uwe Boll makes them. - KingRaptor 11:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Let's not forget Paul W. S. Anderson.--Drat (Talk) 12:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/e/u/Talk%7EDeus_Ex_5c48.html"