Talk:Supreme Commander: Forged Alliance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale. | |
| Low | This article is on a subject of low priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0. | |
 |
A request for a screenshot has been made to help better illustrate the article. (VG images department) | |
|
VG To-do:
|
||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Strategy games, an effort by several users to improve Wikipedia articles on strategy games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. | |
|
Strategy games To-do:
|
||
Contents |
[edit] Units
Are people going to add 100 units in this list?. Has this will violate WP:NOT and many others. So i feel the best thing to do is to add all the units and all sort of info which can not be added in wikipedia can be entered here.--SkyWalker 07:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed. I've removed the list. Good call. --Eyrian 10:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] "New Race the Seraphim"
Is this confirmed somewhere? I've heard this as rumors, but I'm not sure it is established enough to post yet.
Darthirv 02:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- See the gamespot interview --SkyWalker 07:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- There are rumors on the internets... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.161.253.164 (talk) 16:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Merge
This should be merged with Supreme Commander until more information is available. Smaller expansions are generally discussed in the parent article, and this expansion is small until we hear more. --User:Krator (t c) 16:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Make sure to redirect until there is enough information, and to keep an eye out for when the time comes to split. References should be pretty clean to integrate.--Clyde (talk) 18:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep separate - This is not an expansion - it is a completely stand alone game. Fosnez 22:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep separate - No Way, This is a expansion set and a standalone game and deserves a separate article. What is this world coming to..?. --SkyWalker 07:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep separate - Eventually all info regarding this game will become available - if u merge now we will eventually need to split it again. ``Miffy900 09:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] copyright
is it possible to include stuff stated in previews, or is that a breach of copyright? Also, how encyclopedic? frankly tired of citing web. Cuo 12:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yes you can include info from previews. I suggest you visit some featured article to gain more inf such has StarCraft, Supreme Commander and many more. --SkyWalker 13:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Citing web from the start is a good practise. I personally filled in 50 cite web templates on the Supreme Commander article, which ultimately got promoted to FA. Citing sources is important. Note that citing is never a breach of copyright. Copying sentences is, copying information is not - (unless it is patented - does not apply here). --User:Krator (t c) 19:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Standalone nature
The term "standalone" may be confusing to some readers, especially considering what little is known of the expansion pack's pricing scheme and the content it will contain. It makes it sound like the expansion will have everything the original did, which seems like it might make customers who purchased the original more than a bit angry. I'm not sure if there is a page on the wikipedia regarding the computer game industry's usage of the term "standalone" but I think perhaps a section about its content and pricing in regards to its independence from the original game may be warranted. Of course that may be hard if not much is known to the public, so I'm wondering if anybody here has any information or knows of any articles that have any information regarding the more business-related aspects of this product? 69.124.142.33 22:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well if you look at Dark Crusade. It is a standalone expansion for warhammer 40K. It can either be installed if you have the copy of Winter Assault and Dawn of War. If they don't have this game there is no problem they can still play Dark Crusade without the need of those two games which i mentioned. Same thing goes for Supreme Commander: Forged Alliance. It does not need supreme commander to play this game.--SkyWalker 09:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Box Art
I do believe that the box art has been released on Amazon.com or the forums. Not sure if u can just take these pics, but would make a nice addition to this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesjohansen (talk • contribs) 01:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 10:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Forged Alliance has been released
As of November 6, 2007, Forged Alliance is avaliable for purchase in the USA. Nov. 20th is the release date for europe. UEF Soldier (talk) 18:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- What about the system requirements? I don't see them anywhere. --Simpsons fan 66 23:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] My minor edits
Okay, here's what I changed:
- Clarified the status of a "standalone expansion", to point out that without an installed copy of the original, you can't play online as the Aeon, the Cybrans, or the UEF
- Edited the number of new units. The back of the game box does boast over 100 new units, this is true, but the overwhelming majority of those belong to the new faction (and whether the Seraphim versions of mass extractors, engineers, and walls really count as "new" is debatable). Thus while the "100 new units" claim is technically true, it is somewhat misleading. I clarified instead with a statement that the other three faction get "several" new units. 66.183.197.172 (talk) 08:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
(Whoops, forgot to log in. The above is me. Will the Great (talk) 08:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC) )
[edit] Someone really needs to change..
..the bit about Forged Alliance being "further optimized for better performance". The original game runs ten times faster on my system than Forged Alliance. Maybe FA was optimized for SPECIFIC hardware/driver sets. And I'm not running exotic hardware by any means, before you ask. 214.13.173.15 (talk) 04:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- While I agree 100% that the original game runs considerably smoother then the allegedly optimized expansion, the alleged optimizing is documented in many places (such as http://www.games32.com/Supreme-Commander-Forged-Alliance-(PC)-Reviews/p2000_articleid/474/p2000_page/2) and our position that it runs more slowly then the original would be original research. Unless we can get a cite for it being slower, should stay as is for now, IMHO. Ouze (talk) 09:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- OP here. So as long as it's quoted on some site (regardless of its reputability), it holds more water on Wikipedia than original research. Kinda silly. Come to think of it, isn't "original research" the only real kind of research? Everything else is plagiarism.... I know I'm arguing for a lost cause, but eh! 214.13.173.15 (talk) 01:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Update to Designer info
The lead designer on the project was actually Bradley Rebh, not Chris Taylor. This update was made. Credits will confirm this, and can confirm this as a member of the team (not Brad). Anon66.162.141.145 (talk) 23:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
