Talk:Deus Ex 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the assessment scale.
A request for a screenshot has been made to help better illustrate the article. (VG images department)
VG To-do:

Contents

[edit] Deletion Objection

I think that this page, Deus Ex 3, should not be deleted. It serves to inform the community that a third game has been confirmed by the developers, and provides a reference for that with a bit more information. Also, I believe that this article gives us a good base to work off of when more details become available. I certainly don't think this article meets any of the conditions within the Deletion Policy, and should thus be kept. Andrew Morritt 16:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, but as the article stands right now, is it encyclopaedic? That is, does it provide any information that would be found in other encyclopaedias? I agree this article should be recreated when information becomes available but as it is right now the article has no purpose or function. +Hexagon1 (t) 05:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I simply believe it acts to tell people that a 3rd Deus Ex game is in the works- this article is the first time I'd heard of it. Also, it does show that Eidos Montreal is getting involved, something that's become referenced in the Deus Ex template and, I believe, a few other articles. Andrew Morritt 01:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • It's not encyclopedic a true encyclopedia wouldn't have an article on Deus Ex or any other video game. (I checked my Encarta) Jamhaw 15:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)jamhaw
Try saying that to WP:VG. UnaLaguna 16:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Okay I will. Have you ever seen an article on an individual game in say Brittanica or Encarta no you haven't. That is becuase they have limited space and are intended to inform people about important things anyway I believe I read something in use the rules that you can not use the not enyclopedic argument becuase quite simply Wikipedia is not a normal encylopedia. Jamhaw 18:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)jamhaw
  • Since articles do not need that much server space on wikipedia, having this article does not really do any damage. However, having it enables people to add information so that when the game comes out, there will already be some information in the article. I suggest keeping it. --84.178.104.8 13:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


What fool requested a screenshot for a game that won't be out for at least five years? -- Crane

There is no indication this game will not be released for 5 years, its likely to be a 2008 or 2009 title. Take care. 72.49.194.69 21:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC) Joshua
Being realistic this game will not be out before 2010. Leushenko (talk) 23:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Teaser trailer analysis

So should this be kept or not? --217.113.225.116 (talk) 21:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I feel that it goes into too much detail for an encyclopedia article. Even if the sequence does go by very quickly and it very difficult to see each piece of information, this information doesn't belong in an encyclopedia - see WP:NOT#GUIDE and WP:NOT#FAQ. More importantly, I don't see what's so notable about a single trailer: are there any independent reliable sources listing points from the trailer in the same level of detail as detail? If not, then I definitely don't see why we should. Una LagunaTalk 21:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Notability: his is the only piece of info released about the game so it's the only thing to analise and these are the only images for the fans to speculate over. I guess the section will have to be deleted after the article grows. It's still a stub after all. And no, no site has yet made such detailed analysis- I guess they'll copy and paste what they find here. The trailer was released about 36 hours ago so it hasn't been analised so thoroughly. Fans of the series will speculate over this information and find it useful, as there are already links to this article on forums- so they don't need to watch every single frame of the video and try to find out what a certain image or symbol means. Wikipedia is supoposed to give people information they need. And I don't think this section applies to the 'guide' description. I have seen articles in Wikipedia cntaining such analysis and noone trying to delete them, trivia sections and such. So this should make no difference. Anyway, let's keep it until other users state what they think of this section. --217.113.225.116 (talk) 21:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Though I hate to be a policy-whore, I'll point you at WP:CBALL, WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING and WP:ALLORNOTHING. Though I agree that we should wait for another opinion before going ahead and deleting/not deleting it. I'll leave a messages at WP:VG. Una LagunaTalk 22:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I guess there's no point in arguing. A vote then? --217.113.225.116 (talk) 22:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but I'm going to have to agree with Laguna. While I can understand you enthusiasm about the trailer, Wikipedia is not meant to serve as a news outlet. And while there are plenty of similar articles with detailed accounts, analysis and trivia sections, that does not mean they are suppose to be there nor does it mean they are encyclopedic content. The first few two sentences are more inline with an encyclopedic entry.
Honestly, it's a shame to remove it because it is such a detailed analysis that you probably spent a good deal of time on. But it doesn't really count as encyclopedic content in the way it is presented and the fact it doesn't have any sourcing makes it original research. The game developers themselves could come on here and write an awesome detailed article about the development, but without proper sourcing it'd probably have to be removed. Sorry, but that's how Wikipedia's guidelines and policies are designed. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC))
What is presently up there about the trailer is basically unencyclopedic: it says nothing about the game though begs for the user to analysis and synthesis their own opinions of what the game might be about. But then again, providing the link for that trailer will allow the user to see it for themselves and determine what the images are and what they mean. It's worth saying a trailer was released shortly after the game was announced, but any further speculative statement about the content of the trailer is (beyond a release date) should be left to the reader. --MASEM 22:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Laguna is simply right. 217, your position has been argued for many times, and I have to compliment you with display of rationality here. It happens that what you want to do here is, by consensus of the Wikipedia editors, not something we want on Wikipedia. See WP:NOT. An appropriate place would be a forum, or a gaming wiki. Please notice the fundamental difference between a) an article that is the most useful it can be to everyone that could possibly read it and b) an encyclopaedia article. User:Krator (t c) 22:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

This argumentation is rationable enough. I still ask you to keep the section until the information appears on other sites and forums or this article grows enough to not be a 'stub'. From now on i shall not interfere in any change you make in the section, whether it's deleting or shortening it. Anyway, I'm trying to be bold ;) And do keep in mind that the images described appear during two seconds of the trailer and are not that easy for an average viewer to analise. I wouldn't do this if anyone could do it. --217.113.225.116 (talk) 23:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with user 217, infact he has already took actions to perserve it before its deletion, just give him time for his analysis to reach other sites. --172.212.240.156 (talk) 00:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Technically, even if it's removed it is still in the edit history. So you guys don't have to worry about it being gone for ever. That being said, I would like to reiterate that detailed descriptions of trailers does not really fall under the definition of encyclopedic content, regardless of proper sourcing. (Guyinblack25 talk 01:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC))

I agree with the arguments presented that the detailed summary is not suitable for Wikipedia, and I also wonder if there might be a copyright issue involved in having an article that's effectively a substitute for viewing the trailer. The current Deus Ex 3 article treats 3 seconds of video in 276 words, which would be enough to summarise a half-hour television episode. (Our guidelines for television plot summaries suggest "no more than ten words per minute of screen time".) EALacey (talk) 09:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The consensus appears to be to remove the analysis. I'll go ahead and do that. Una LagunaTalk 19:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Platform

Removed the inclusion of "Microsoft Xbox 360" and "Sony PS3" because they failed to supply a cited source announcing this. And dear God I hope they never will.--172.212.240.156 (talk) 09:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there any source which announced that it would be for PC? I don't recall hearing ANYTHING about what platform it'll be on.

Yes, there is.--172.213.139.57 16:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

None of the articles in the References section give any mention of what platform it will appear on. The only evidence we have are the platfroms that Tomb Raider: Legend appeared on (PC, PS2, 360). I'm going to replace "Microsoft Windows" with TBA. -- Lines open 15:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Further: In this article, D'Astous says that Eidos Montreal will be working on next-gen consoles & PC, but he does not say which platforms Deus Ex 3 will appear on. Rather than assume what he's implying, let's just wait for official confirmation. -- Lines open 15:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rumors

So stuff like this is probably a bad idea: "There has been speculation on many game forums that you may play as Paul Denton and that the year 2027 will start the game off in a flashback, teaching the player more about the evolution of the augmentations." --Lines open (talk) 14:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Setting part of the article

I'd edit it myself, only I don't exactly know how to word it.

The thing is, I checked the "subliminal" part of the trailer myself, and the ballot box spotted actually said "Biopolitic Vote", not "Biopolitic 2027". There is still evidence that supports the "prequel" hypothesis, though.

The frames in the beginning of that part show pictures of human anatomical features and paintings about old anatomical lectures, the kind where the instructor actually cuts open the body and stuff. A couple frames after that show a person with a robotic prosthetic arm, and a bin of various types of such arms. Then comes the ballot box, then after, an entrance sign typical of places of entertainment. The title of the place is obscured, but the text under it says "Augmented People Enter From the Back". After that, a frame of what looks like a shop sign that says "We Do Not Welcome Augmented People Here". The next comprehensible frame is an image of a city street, followed by an image of what looks like riot police marching, then another city image, only it looks like a crowd of people is running from something. A few frames follow before it resumes the 3D graphic.

Kind of reminds me of images from the era of racial segregation in the United States. Maybe the plot has some such influences. -Tajik24 (talk) 04:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

As discussed above at #Teaser trailer analysis, we can't include any analysis or original research by extrapolating information from the trailer ourselves: we need analysis from reliable sources. As it happens, my copy of PC Gamer (UK edition) popped through the door a couple of days ago, and it has dedicated a whole page to analysing the trailer. I should be able to write some trailer analysis now, though I'm not sure if there will be enough information to justify a Setting section. Una LagunaTalk 08:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, yeah, I forgot about the original research aspect. -Tajik24 (talk) 18:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warren Spector

Would it be relevant to include the fact that Warren Spector is not involved in the development of this game? The first game was, after all, his brainchild, and he had a heavy hand in the making of the second. It could be somewhat important to mention - it's like someone writing a sequel to Romeo and Juliet without Shakespeare's involvement. And Spector has stated he is concerned about the sequel's development without any of the original creators. Article from computerandvideogames.com --71.245.250.220 (talk) 15:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes it would. Thanks for the source: someone should definitely put this information in. Una LagunaTalk 16:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)