Talk:Gears of War 2/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Confirmed at GDC. Capitalization needs fixed.

Since this game has finally been confirmed, this page needs to be moved to Gears of War (not "war")... Please unprotect or make the move. Thanks. xenocidic (talk) 19:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Can an admin please do that. john.n-irl (talk) 19:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I've contacted the protecting admin to lift the restriction. xenocidic (talk) 20:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I filed a request on the protection page, so hopefully we'll be able to redirect this page to Gears of War 2 soon. --ShadowJester07 ► Talk 20:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I was going to do that but it suggested that you contact the protecting admin first. Whichever is faster, I suppose. xenocidic (talk) 20:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Looks all good now :) --ShadowJester07 ► Talk 21:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Er, just a simple move was needed. heh :p JAF1970 (talk) 00:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Aye, when I wrote the above comments, "Gears of War 2" was edit-locked. xenocidic (talk) 00:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Semi-prot requested for a few days. JAF1970 (talk) 00:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Fact error

Soft body physics has nothing to do with textures. It is purely a geometric deformation effect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.115.22.148 (talk) 12:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Box art

The box art is official Microsoft and Epic Megagames box art, issued as part of the press kit. They're issued as official. The disclaimer on the bottom is legal, allowing them to change their minds at some future point. But that IS the official box art from now til release. JAF1970 (talk) 15:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The cover specifically states "Artwork Not Final", meaning that there is no guarantee that Microsoft will use that specific box-art. Given its from a fan kit, the images are nearly promotional, and not really a box art, meaning they should also use a {{promotional}} tag until a final box art is officially announced. While the image is official is there a real need to add it? Is there a reference or document from the fan kit that actually verifies that the boxart' is actually official? This article is only a few days old, adding promotional images is not really a major concern at this point. --ShadowJester07 ► Talk 20:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
EXCUSE ME? A "fan kit"? No. Do you even KNOW what a press kit is? This is issued to websites, including resellers. This is OFFICIAL MICROSOFT BOX ART. "Artwork Not Final" does not mean this is placeholder - it means they're sticking with this unless they get a better idea. Learn the industry. JAF1970 (talk) 06:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Deleted the Gameplay section

At this point, there is no information on gameplay. Whoever created that section and said there was a trailer featuring gameplay entitled "Duel" at GDC is a goddamn filthy liar. All we have right now is a cinematic teaser trailer with Marcus "dueling" with a Locus. With that being said, until there's an official statement saying chainsaw dueling will be in the game and not for cinematic purposes, anything said is only an assumption and has no room in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Big Boss Inc. (talk • contribs) 23:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Please be civil and assume good faith. oh, and sign your posts. xenocidic (talk) 23:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


There's actually a tech demo that shows some gameplay. If you want a link it's right here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkcM4djkvLI

So you see, I'm no liar, it is pretty much confirmed how gameplay will be. (talk) 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Saying that we know nothing about gameplay is a pretty naive statement in itself: it's a sequel. They're not exactly gunna break the mold here. xenocidic (talk) 02:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Please read WP:V, all information on Wikipedia must be cited. We do not know what the gameplay will be. We can assume all we want to, but editor assumptions are not allowed on Wikipedia. Your personal assumption that the gameplay won't change because its a sequel is irrelevant, we need reliable sources. Sorry, but YouTube is not a reliable source of information. Source it or remove it until you can.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for providing a source.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Sure thing. in future perhaps just tag it with a [citation needed] for a day or two before deleting it. though, I agree that deleting the speculation regarding "dueling" was warranted. cheers. xenocidic (talk) 04:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Cinematic teaser? You mean the game isn't entirely black-and-red? I thought that was the new style for Gears of War 2 and that was a real time rendering of the game in a state comparible to the finished product. 142.165.59.39 (talk) 11:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

What was said about "a trailer simply titled "Duel" demonstrating gameplay and a new feature called "chainsaw dueling" was a lie. Therefore, you are a liar. And yes, it's a cinematic trailer, but if people weren't making false claims saying it was a gameplay trailer I wouldn't have had to remind everyone. Also, smartass comments that don't contribute to the discussion have no place here. Big Boss Inc.(talk)

Again Big Boss, please remain civil. I need not remind you that you began this argument against the gameplay section by calling an editor a "goddamn filthy liar" when you should have simply assumed good faith. xenocidic (talk) 23:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


Big Boss, I didn't say there was a cinematic "gameplay" trailer, I said there was a teaser (nothing about gameplay included in it was said) entitled "Duel" which Marcus dukes it out in a chainsaw duel with a Locust. So please, pay more attention to what people write before pointing fingers. dude527 (talk) 20:02, 22 February 2008

I quote from the mentioned section that was deleted "

The trailer released for the GDC show, entitled "Duel", showed gameplay features that were primarily similar to Gears of War, a third-person, "run and gun" style game that emphasized the use of cover for protection. An additional feature included in the trailer was the ability for players to engage in a duel using their Lancers (the combination machine gun-chainsaw weapons), with only one player surviving the fight."

Right there, first sentence, states that it was a gameplay trailer. The bit about chainsaw dueling was a fabrication. Stating that within the trailer there was demonstrating of the player's abilities to "duel", when there was certainly not, thus it is considered a lie. This is the edit that I have been refering to since my original post. So you're either mistaken, or simply unwilling to admit you knowlingly submitted false information to the article. Big Boss Inc. (talk) 21:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)Big Boss Inc.

While it's not an official announcement from Epic, here is a link that says the chainsaw dueling is an actual feature in the game. SeanMooney (talk) 05:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
“ I was talking to two people last night who are close enough to the development team at Epic to know and they confirmed for me that this will be a mechanic in the game ”

This is too much o a "my sister-in-law who's boyfriend is dating the receptionist at Epic..." situation =) -- nn-blog without first-hand knowledge. not saying it's not true, but we just can't use this as a source. xenocidic (talk) 15:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


I was mistaken, I didn't write that, Big Boss, my apologies. While it's likely that there will be chainsaw dueling in Gears 2, that isn't a valid source, coming from a Epic spokesperson so we can't use it. Find another source then come back and we'll see if it's valid. dude527 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

It's cool, bro. Big Boss Inc. (talk) 09:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

IGN Interview with John DiMaggio

[1]; includes new details, the latest info, etc., etc. Just posting for anyone keeping track of the article.  Comandante Talk 02:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Chainsaw duels

No mention yet of this critical new addition to the game. JAF1970 (talk) 04:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there confirmation that this is a gameplay feature? We've a pre-rendered promo video, but that's not proof. --MASEM 06:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Proof It was also extensively discussed on the OXM podcast. JAF1970 (talk) 17:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Added. As long as we've got other sources than just the video, that's all that's needed. --MASEM 17:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Added the KOXM link, after a lot of stumbling. :p JAF1970 (talk) 17:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


Read the Deleted Gamplay section, we went over this. Promotional cinematics do not prove anything about gameplay without an official statement. Podcasts and blogs from fans are NOT reliable sources here at wikipedia. Big Boss Inc. (talk) 00:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

That's not correct; those types of sources are generally not reliable, but you have to consider where the source is from. The podcast is from Official Xbox Magazine, who is a reliable source, and thus the podcast is a reasonable inclusion. The blog is a Variety magazine editor, which is also a reliable source. In this case, it's appropriate to include these though the cavaet of "chainsaw duels have been confirmed by Source 1 and Source 2" should be included because if they are wrong, it's not egg on WP's face. --MASEM 00:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore, the guys at OXM spoke to some of the devs. JAF1970 (talk) 00:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I concur that it should be included.Wageslave (talk) 01:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, most of the important stuff N'Gai Croal posts is in his Newsweek blog, not articles. JAF1970 (talk) 04:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
From the podcast given -- although it features an allusion to the chainsaw battles, the podcast seems to be more of a discussion of something which is already referenced with the link which preceded it. I appreciate that they may have spoken with developers, but the fact that it's the Official Xbox podcast does not mean that all the information on there is intrinsically factual and quote-worthy as the podcast does give them some room for speculation.
You do know that these two are EDITORS of the OFFICIAL Xbox Magazine who have a ton of regular contact with CliffyB, etc, right? JAF1970 (talk) 23:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Again, though -- I'm quite sure if Cliff Blezinski had told them it is guaranteed to be in the game, they would most likely be discussing it candidly. In other interviews I have seen, although as irrelevant, CliffyB seems somewhat reluctant to reveal any future features for the franchise as there would have undoubtedly been a "gagging order" issued by Epic Games in order to maintain their assets. It doesn't matter if they are in close contact with Cliff because that is relatively circumstancial and has no bearing on what is actually in the material, because it simply isn't discussed. As of this moment, I'm not going to be pursuing in this discussion further as I don't wish to waste further time and storage space which is a seemingly unfruitful discussion. J O R D A N [talk ] 00:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I've checked the podcast link out, and they're speaking about how the feature is a latent inclusion after it was considered for the first release of the game, but from what I have listened to it doesn't actually seem to give any specific information which could be quoted particularly, but I haven't had time to listen to the entire podcast.
The reason I removed it before was that, if you are to reference a podcast -- it's better to have a reference to the material within the podcast so that it can be verified because even in that podcast the allusion to Microsoft and the developers in the 3rd person gives the suggestion that they aren't developers speaking of the game from a perspective inside Epic Games. If you actually give quotations of the presenters which contain more information than the other link, then you can reference it as an audio clip.
As the quote was given, was incorrect. It was cited as a website reference,when it's an audio reference -- the URL given didn't contain the information, the audio clip did and they need to be referenced differently. If you supplied a quotation and position in the clip then I'd be happy to keep it, providing it added more information than the other link. J O R D A N [talk ] 23:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, how else are people going to access the podcast? Give the link to the podcast which gives people an opportunity to listen to the raw podcast.
And please, don't act like these are two guys recording in their Mom's basement. JAF1970 (talk) 23:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Secondary sources are required, but as disclaimers on most sites hosting podcasts -- they give no claims as to the accuracy of the information they hold as they can be simply representing the image of "Microsoft Xbox" through an intermediary, such as a publishing house.
Again, I'm not being asinine here, and I have certainly not suggested that they are "two guys recording in their own basement", as that would be somewhat reductio-ad-absurdium on your part. I am suggesting that the citation at least give a quote of the information so that it is more verifiable for other editors, rather than just a link to a podcast page which does not even list the topic on the brief description. Although the template is now named cite video, the medium= parameter can be supplied as "Podcast" and the quote added in without too many problems.
Do not misunderstand my intentions in this situation. I am not doubting the validity of the material as being from Xbox, but what I am saying is that within the medium of podcast -- there is somewhat of an "artistic license" when they are referring to the topic, which can encompass speculative speech clips "I think it may be", or "I'm gonna say it may be". Just because it is endorsed or linked to by Microsoft itself does not grant the medium rites as an immediate bona-fide reference.
Here, for your information is the quote of the presenters discussing the trailer which contains the imagery of the chainsaw battle between the protagonist Marcus Fenix, and a Locust. This is referenced by speech before this segment in which the Xbox 360 Dashboard is discussed as promoting Gears of War 2:

Excerpt from the "OXM Podcast"

Exerpt from "KOXM Episode 103" [05:21 - 07:04]
Speaker Transcript quotation
Ryan "Most of you probably have watched the trailer by now, so hell let's just talk about it anyway. Chainsaw duels, Paul.. chainsaw duels. Is that not awesome?"
Paul "Yeah, if you think of it it's a natural evolution from the first game, in terms of almost "Mortal Kombat" style finishing moves; stuff going.. but with that kind of Epic-Gears-of-War-love team behind it, but the grizzly factor of Marcus stabbing the locust with the chainsaw was just awesome. If you can picture the gameplay dynamics that will evolve as a result."
Ryan "Yeah, you gotta figure that that's probably if you happen to .. you could maybe argue that they're maybe borrowing from the sword-clashing in Halo 3 but why not? It's better with chainsaws. I would have to figure that would probably the case where, you know .. if you and a locust got at it at the same time, or of course in multiplayer if you and another guy go at it at the same time. I'm guessing there'll be a, you know.. a random button prompt where you gotta wail on the button faster than the other guy.. I would have to imagine that's the case."
Paul "Something to that effect i'd expect too, yeah. Either it'll be a "Track and Field" who can pound it faster, or who can type "AXB" randomly in the fastest order."
Ryan "Yeah. But then that.. that.. [Coup de grâce].. that.. flip the gun over and carve them up with the chainsaw.. cannot wait to see that in the context of the game and see how many moves they end up having."
Paul "Looks like they'll do a good bit of variety, but for me the winning moment was seeing him flip the chainsaw up in the air and do that kinda 180[o] spin and just gag the locust right away with it.. that was just.. That was good stuff."
Ryan "So good for, yeah .. you put it well man.. best non-gameplay trailer ever."

I hate say it, but that just seems like commentary on the actual trailer and speculation on the features, rather than them admitting to know it will be in the game. There hasn't been any allusion to the fact they have been told it is in the game, they are just speculating on the issue; regardless of the fact they have spoken to developers, were likely to or not still really doesn't assure me that the quotes give the same information as other sources, or that they are even citation worthy. J O R D A N [talk ] 00:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Check earlier in the podcast. JAF1970 (talk) 00:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

In the end, it's not that big a deal, since we still have the other citation from a reliable source. JAF1970 (talk) 00:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC) "Doesn't show real gameplay", November release date. There is nothing in this section, either, which suggests that this is anything other than commentary as the previous section is mostly to do with "Name that Xbox Sound effect", which oddly doesn't contain the information either. Again, as I have stated before -- I am not going to discuss this issue further as this will likely become exhaustive. J O R D A N [talk ] 00:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Unreal Tech Demo

I know an improved version of Unreal Engine will be in Gears 2, but what relevance does the detailed explanation have to the article? It's not necessarily the actual game in the tech demo. It's just that.. a tech demo. Too loosely related to deserve such an explanation. I suggest that it simply be summarzied elsewhere in the article like "Gears of War 2 will be running on an improved Unreal Engine 3." Scarslasher (talk) 05:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The demo was entirely based upon improvements of the Unreal Engine specific to Gears of War 2, rather than just improvements to the engine itself. All of the features shown are noteworthy as they are indications as to improvements and changes in the future game. Although the description is a little technical, I prefer an explanatory paragraph rather than a pittance of a sentence which contains nothing more than an allusion to the engine.
Also, as noted in the paragraph explaining the technical demo -- it doesn't allude to it being the game, but then again they do themselves use it as a demonstration of the features which they are coding for the next release. Sure, it's not the full game as that encompasses the story aspect of the game as well as significant plot points, et cetera. The point of the matter is that, if there's information to be had about the technical demo which is relevant to the game, it is better to quote it rather than to make some vague tokenistic gesture that it's "running on an improved unreal engine 3". J O R D A N [talk ] 11:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
“ At the 2008 Game Developers Conference in San Francisco, California, as a showcase for the functionality of the Unreal Engine 3, Gears of War creators Epic Games showed various improvements to the engine with specific reference to the sequel itself. ”

God of War II

Resolved.

God of War II should be re-derected here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.225.212 (talk) 11:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Its a completely different game and series. --MASEM 13:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
If you mean that "GOW2" should be redirected here instead of "God of War II", there is already a disambig at the top of the that page. I think that perhaps GOW2 should be redirected here closer to Gears of War 2's launch. xenocidic (talk) 14:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I concur that the "GOW2" should be redirected closer to launch. Wageslave (talk) 20:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Does it really matter, since both articles will refer to each other? JAF1970 (talk) 23:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
My suggestion to redirect GOW2 over to Gears of War 2 is because closer to the launch, more people will use GOW2 to search for Gears than God of War. (Perhaps they already are). The redirect should go to the more frequently desired article, should it not? xenocidic (talk) 00:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely. Gears of War 2 is closer to launch na dI beleive it should be changed. Not to be...."fanboyistic", but I think Gears if War 2 article is being visited more often anyway. Or we could change it to GeOW2, like some game sites do.Dcwil477 (talk) 16:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Why can't GOW2 just be made into a disambiguation page like BF2 used to be? At least for the time being it seems like a good compromise. TH1RT3EN talk ♦ contribs 17:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I dunno, a disambig page with 2 links seems like a waste to me. I was thinking of redirecting GOW2 to Gears 2 in May (6 months to launch). But if there's resistance from the God of War folks, then a disambig page would be the most neutral way to go about it. xenocidic (talk) 17:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I must say I disagree with you in this case Xenocidic, if you type GOW 2, you come to Gears of War 2, which can be a page that people that want info about God of War 2 don't want to see. Thats why I made the redirection info at the top of the article in the first place, because I wanted to go to God of War 2 and got to Gears of War 2 instead. So both GOW2 and GOW 2 should have info about Gears of War 2 and God of War 2... Jørgen88 (talk) 21:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't think about putting a space in between GOW and 2. I made a proper diambig tag. My earlier statement still stands that GOW2 and GOW 2 ought redirect to Gears of War 2, with a single disambig tag sending people to God of War II, but a proper disambig page would work as well. xenocidic (talk) 21:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, good. Jørgen88 (talk) 18:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
On this topic, I can totally see this becoming a fanboy battleground in the future. I agree with Th1rt3en that GOW2 should bring you to a disambiguation. Michael.A.Anthony (talk) 00:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Y Done. I got off my lazy behind and created the disambig page. No fanboy wars = everyone happy. xenocidic (talk) 14:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.