Talk:Insurrection (StarCraft)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Insurrection (StarCraft) article.
Article policies
A summary of this article appears in StarCraft (series).
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Inclusion in Blizzard Entertainment footer

  • I really don't think this belongs in the footer box at the bottom of other Blizzard game articles - it's not even found on Blizzard's page. It's a third party lacklustre expansion, not unlike D!Zone and the like for Doom. I am going to cut it from those things along with Retribution unless someone has a good reason they should stay. Deusfaux 23:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Both the Insurrection and the Retribution add-on campaigns are, in fact, mentioned in Blizzard's official Battle.Net FAQ for StarCraft. The FAQ states that there are three official add-ons for StarCraft, of which Brood War is one. The two others are, you guessed it, Retribution and Insurrection. It doesn't change the fact that both these second party products suck dog, though. --Tirolion 19:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

They are not created by Blizzard and thus should not be included in the footer, same with Hellfire which was an endorsed add-on but not created by Blizzard --Fogeltje 19:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, alright. I fail to see the logic, tho. Stuff from the various novels of toilet quality is included, isn't it? Be that as it may, seeing as the Starcraft Universe is one giant convoluted mess of incoherent non sequiturs, I really do fail to see what is and what isn't considered "worthy of inclusion". Perhaps some general guidelines? Are only in-game references to be considered? Oh, by the by, the Battle.Net FAQ mentioning the add-ons is here, btw. --Tirolion 09:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of whether they are part of the Blizzard footer, they are officially part of the StarCraft universe - as said, they are given official recognition in the Battlenet FAQ. I've added this and Retribution into a new "Games" part of the StarCraft universe footer, which (naturally) includes StarCraft, Brood War and Ghost. -- S@bre, 16 May 2007

[edit] Installation problems

I think there should be some information about the installation procedure.

The installer reads from the file %windir%\scunin.dat to determine where StarCraft is installed, this is a problem for people who has copied their copy of StarCraft from another computer.

After the installer has read from the file and determined where StarCraft resides, it creates the file %windir%\Insurrec.ini with info, if this file is present when you run the installer, %windir%\scunin.dat is not needed.

Therefore, I think we should provide a sample of that file in the article (Note: scunin.dat is not easily edited).

Here is a sample:

[Nexus Insurrection Ver 1.4]
[Paths]
CD=F:\
StarCraft=e:\games\starcraft\
LinkPath=e:\documents and settings\all users\start-meny\program\starcraft\
[Installed Components]
This isn't really a typical problem, you're not supposed to copy the game from another computer - thats probably in violation of the end user agreement anyway... -- S@bre 16:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blizzard endorsement

Any sources indicating that Blizzard endorsed this product (other than claims by the product makers themselves)?

  • Yes. It's even mentioned on this talk page. Links and all.--Tirolion 23:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Stuff

any new units?

No. It's technically just a custom campaign so it can only use stock StarCraft units (and Brood War ones if you play it using the Brood War disc). -- S@bre 11:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Box art

It's hysterical but I'm pretty sure it's incorrect.--Ben0207 21:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I can personally assure you it is accurate (I own a copy), plus a quick search of Google Images will tell you the same thing. -- S@bre 11:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
The user is referring to earlier when someone overwrote the image with a new version which had the letters "Insur" replaced by an "e" in an attempt to be funny I guess. You can check the image history of the image [1]. All is fine now. --Fogeltje 16:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re-do of entire article

I've just wasted most of my day here :) bringing this article up to something comparable to the Brood War article (I used the same basic structure as the BW article, it's efficient and it works). As we add other bits to the lists of minor characters, minor factions, etc, we'll need link the appropriate points to those places - at the time of writing the only two characters up are Jack Frost and Auza, and the only faction up is Incubus Brood.

In any case, whilst I personally think that the article is now satisfactory, we could use some more on the Reception section: the only reviews I could find were exact copies of the Gamespot review. We could use some more reviews to provide a broader range of opinions rather than just what Gamespot says. Accordingly, I've marked that section up as a stub.

Oh, and if anyone wants to contest the canon statement, then please do two things: firstly explain what the point of authorising it is other than to make it canon (and hence use this statement of canon to market it - you can see Blizzard refer to it directly here.) and secondly provide a citation to where Blizzard or Aztech clearly state that it is not canon. -- S@bre 17:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The fact that Blizzard has authorized it does not automatically mean it is considered canon. Blizzard authorized Hellfire for Diablo but ignored it in Diablo canon. Your second point is not valid, if you include it, you should provide a citation that it is considered canon, not the other way around. I haven't seen any such citations from either Blizzard or Aztech.--Fogeltje 13:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, how's this: since it's probably impossible to cite either case - Insurrection is not known widely enough for such a source to be easily found - I'll remove the statement of canon. However, there is no reason to disregard it as not canon - after all nothing in the expansion contradicts anything in the main games, which are considered sovereign in canon disputes. So in interest of compromise we don't say anything on the canonical validity of the add-on. -- S@bre 13:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Sounds fine to me.--Fogeltje 15:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Insurrection.jpeg

Image:Insurrection.jpeg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Issue addressed. -- S@bre 08:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

The references section lists a review from gamespot which mentions both developer and release date and Blizzard endorsement, so no citation tag needed. Also the link to the Blizzard FAQ mentions the developer and endorsement, why that reference was deleted, I don't know. Also the screenshot of the gamebox lists Aztec Media, I think that should be enough.--Fogeltje 08:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that due to how little reception the game has got, it is highly difficult to find sources for most of it. The only source I could find was that Gamespot review, copied over and over onto other websites - as I said, other established reviewers don't seem to have reviewed it. Aztech New Media's site and company no longer exist, so there is no help there either. There is practically no way to cite the difficulty section, that is simple matter-of-fact from analysing how the maps are designed in the Campaign Editor. But whilst I might agree with the lack of citation template, I don't see how it is not neutral... -- S@bre 09:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)