Talk:Advance Wars: Days of Ruin/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Release Dates?

I'm not sure if it matters but out of curiosity, is there any reason why the game was released in the US and EU first? It's not listed on the Intelligent Systems website (http://www.intsys.co.jp/) and there is still no release set for Japan. Being a Japanese developer, why would Intelligent Systems/Nintendo choose to release it outside of Japan first? Falindrith (talk) 23:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Probably the same reason they opted to release the Wii in NA first - different buying frenzy periods. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 00:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hasn't that been the case with every Advance Wars game? Geoff B (talk) 10:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

GameFAQs lists the Australian release date as 02/21/08, but since I don't know the source I can't verify it; I'll keep an eye out for more dependable news, though. Odds are the remaining release dates are imminent.  Comandante  Talk  20:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Info

Can anyone get a copy of it when it comes out, as far as I see, it's looking EU only.YdoUask 23:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't know exactly what you mean by asking this, but I don't think that the game will be released exclusively in European territories. None of the other Advance Wars games have, and I don't see any reason why they would start now...then again, the game has only been shown in France and has only been listed for European release so far. Still, the game has only made two appearances and one of them was merely announcing its existence. So I think it will release in multiple territories.

Anyway, I don't think this makes too much of a difference for the article at this point.

Erik 02:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

What they mean is that the release date for Australia is unconfirmed, and that the article should be changed to reflect that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.51.83 (talk) 06:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Well it's confirmed now XD Kiminatheguardian (talk) 03:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Nintendo Wars Template

This is not completely related to the article, but has anyone noticed the change made to the game link template at the bottom of Nintendo Wars game articles? This new one seems much less refined than the previous one, and is even missing some games which were included in the last one. If possible, can anyone revert this to the old template? Comandante42 19:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I have taken care of the problem and restored the original template. In case you want to know, the user who made the changes was Shiggy. Hopefully this won't happen again. 72.49.101.186 20:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Previous Unit Names

Shouldn't the unit's names include what they previously were, so that, for example, people know that the Bazooka used to be the Mech? Perhaps another category for renamed units? Or something like "Bazooka (Previously known as Mech)" or "Mech (Called Bazooka in AW:DoR)"? Glade 13:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I know what you mean. When I updated and reorganized the returning unit list a while back, I added such details. Apparently they aren't necessary to this article, because someone keeps removing them. I'd leave the issue alone for now, and maybe bring it up again when this article is more fleshed-out and the rename-details might be more important.

72.49.101.186 19:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Except it is necessary, especially to players. If someone who played AW:DS comes in and looks that the list of "Returning Units", they're not going to know that Bazooka means Mech and Mech Gun means Artillery. Glade 19:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and added the old names. I noticed that they were there before, and I also don't know why they were removed. Hopefully they will stay this time. If anyone can organize the way I displayed the info better, feel free to; I couldn't think of a better format but I'm sure there is. For anyone else editing this article, try to leave in the info if you can't improve it. Comandante42 20:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well as it turns out they're still called Mechs. Kiminatheguardian (talk) 03:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Tank/ Megatank

Comandante42, while I agree with most of your recent edits to the page, I have changed your edit to the Anti-Tank info. The Anti-Tank is indeed a Howitzer-like gun unit with an indirect attack that obviously counters tank units. The Megatank seen in the screenshot going up against a Motorbike is NOT the new Anti-Tank unit, though other screens seemed to support this until recent facts were made known to me. The Anti-Tank is seen at the end of the AW: DoR Trailer video in the Factory unit production list that pops up. It is the third unit from the top of the right column, and costs 11000 G. As for the Megatank, all we have is that one screen of it, and the mini-version seen in the Infantry unit info part of another screen. I guess the details about the Megatank have yet to be revealed, but it is clear that they are two separate units; also the Megatank does not appear in the video in the list with the Anti-Tank, likely because it is unavailable at that point in the Campaign.

72.49.101.186 05:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Oddly enough, I was just about to remove my info on the Anti-Tank, but not because I had learned that I got it wrong. I just thought that it was too hard to see the difference in pixels in the screen shots, and my info may need an explanation. Anyway, I guess we will have to wait and see how the Megatank turns out. I'll try and find some more details about both units, but again, thanks for fixing my mistake. One last thing: I have noticed a tendency for many people to confuse the Flare, Anti-Tank, and Megatank sprites with each other due to the bad image and video quality. Apparently, the Flare is closer to an Artillery unit in design, and if you are right, then the one sprite thought to be the Flare is actually the Anti-Tank. Looks like the Megatank is the only true direct-attacker. Comandante42 05:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

New COs

This is a little soon to broach the subject, but should the new Days of Ruin COs be included in the current Advance Wars CO List at all? As these COs are present in a new plotline, it would be confusing for them to be in the original article, unless the COs were reorganized by plotline. Even this, I fear, may lead to some misunderstandings. I am in favor of a separate article being created at a time when enough info has been made available so that it is clearly understood that one set of COs is unrelated to the other. Since the game release is currently months away, I do not expect a good response at least until early Jan. or the game's release, when more info may have come to light that will be vital in making the final decision.

Comandante42 20:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I think a new page is a good idea, since the other page is crowded already. Perhaps "List of Advance Wars: Days of Ruin COs" or some such. Glade 22:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the article and based it as much as possible on the original one. Hopefully more details can be added soon. Comandante42 (talk) 04:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:VG assessment

This is definitely beyond stub-level, so well done on getting it thus far! Here are some ideas to improve it further:

• Sourcing on the whole is good, though you may want to convert the citations not already in the {{cite web}} template to use them.
• You should also have a look at how I've re-done the references - this method means that the ref list isn't clogged up with the same reference over and over again.
• Furthermore, per WP:MOS in-line citation thingies should go after punctuation and not before. I also fixed this.
• The Gameplay section is written with a very good level of detail (not too much, not too little), but I would suggest trying to merge as many of the one- and two-sentence paragraphs, as it makes the prose seem quite choppy to read. The length of these paragraphs (just one sentence in the whole Multiplayer section!) means that the subsections aren't really necessary as yet.
• The Plot section will need to be expanded to give a full overview of the plot once you've got the citations required.
• Currently, this game only has sections dealing with the actual games. Usually video game articles have a section about the development of the game (e.g. when it was announced, which game shows it was on display at), and a Reception section (what reviews of the game said). Given the fact that the game hasn't been finished/released yet, I can understand why the Reception section doesn't exist yet.
• Once the game's released, get some screenshots. A fair use rationale, such as that used on the game's logo, would be necessary.
• The lead section needs to be expanded per WP:LS to summarise the entire article, but as the game isn't released yet a "complete" lead won't be possible.

Otherwise, great work. If you have any questions don't hesitate to ask. Una Laguna^Talk 07:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

New Name?

Advance Wars: Dark Conflict goes on sale in the United States on January 21. The Australian release date has yet to be confirmed. This is the quote from: http://www.gameplayer.com.au/Home/PREVIEWS/PREVIEWGAME/tabid/1484/Default.aspx?CID=23b1c420-41b6-458a-921c-88fe2c9a6d99&v7Pager=1

If this is a LOCALISED to Australia only name why would they refer to the US release by its Aussie name? Anyway, worth keeping an I on IMO. KsprayDad (talk) 04:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The game is referred to by the Australian name because the site is Australian. Look at it this way: in the US, we don't refer to the Japanese name of a game when we talk about it, but almost always by its US name. Same thing in Australia. Dark Conflict is the Australian name, so it wouldn't make sense to refer to the game as Days of Ruin on an Australian website. This would only confuse Australian gamers, much like us American gamers are now perplexed by this kind of information cross-contamination. I'm sure all that has happened is that an American site saw an Australian one and rashly posted the new info as a name change without considering that the name could only be the Australian localized version. We'll know for sure in a week or so, if the big American gaming sites like IGN bring it up or not. Comandante42 (talk) 05:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Official Nintendo Power (American) has referred to it as Advance Wars: Days of Ruin YdoUask (talk) 01:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Naming puns?

I'm sure Rubinelle is a pun on ruby and Lazuria on lapiz lazuli...should this be put in? 72.80.37.238 (talk) 03:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• It definitely is, and I think it should be put in eventually. However, I think we should wait until the names for the green and yellow nations are officially revealed first. 130.18.120.144 (talk) 17:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Green faction is to remain absent in AW:DoR-- Penubag  18:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

For the record, there will be only four nations in AW: DoR; Red (Rubinelle), Blue (Lazuria), Yellow, and Black. I know that some gaming site, either 1up.com or Gamespot, previously named the Red and Blue nations in their original preview of the game, long before Nintendo Power mentioned it. I came to the same conclusion about the origins of the names, and I've speculated on other game sites about the names of the remaining two unidentified nations. Unfortunately, the origins of the names in this game have no bearing whatsoever in the article. Such trivial info isn't allowed in articles like this unless it directly factors into an aspect of gameplay, which it does not; since the meaning of the names may be completely different in another localized version of the game, it would serve no purpose to add the info. You can post the info on this discussion page, but it can't be placed into the article. Comandante42 (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Ah, I see. Thank you. AkvoD3 (talk) 17:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Green faction's gray in this game. Kiminatheguardian (talk) 03:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Old COs

This (official) page seems to say that the previous games' COs have been specifically killed off, rather than simply superceded by a new cast. Is it worth slightly altering the wording of the article in light of this? U-Mos (talk) 15:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Nothing should be changed. This appears to be a misunderstanding, as it was clearly stated by developers early on that Days of Ruin would take place in a different storyline than the old one. That means that in the world of DoR, the old COs and nations never existed, and therefore could not have been killed as seemingly implied by your site. The fates of the old COs are not a part of DoR at all. Also, since your site is for the European localized version (Dark Conflict), some details will differ, but I doubt the plot was changed in such a way to make the game a direct sequel to AW: DS. Localization usually doesn't go that far, so again, what you saw is probably just a misunderstanding. Comandante42 (talk) 20:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

But as this is an official page, direct from the publisher which can be referanced and used as a primery source, shouldn't this information be used until otherwise disproved? Also, while we're at it, can a registered user add a redirect for Dark Conflict? - As no other page is using it, I think it's OK if we claim it. 81.137.159.61 (talk) 11:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The info really shouldn't be added since it is contradicted by previously released info, which affirms that the plots of the old games and the new one have nothing to do with each other. Wait until the North American site is up, and if that does not clear it up, then we'll just have to wait for the game; as it is, do not add info from the European site just yet. Comandante42 (talk) 21:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't find a source/referance stating that it's nothing to do with the previous games attached to the article. I'll go along with what you said if one is added. 81.149.182.210 (talk) 02:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why the American site should be considered more reliable than the European one. And all I remember reading is that the COs would all be new, not that there would be no connection whatsoever. Whatever the case, it's a very minor point anyway. U-Mos (talk) 13:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

An interview video on the Gamespot page, as well as various preview articles from other sites dated around October, clearly make the point across that the new game is a separte entity in terms of plot. Not only does this explain the absence of the old COs, but it also explains other changes such as scaled back CO powers and that there are only new countries and none of the old ones. As for the European site's credibility, that is only due to localization. As the new game has not been released yet, there is no way to compare the European and American versions for such differences. Comandante42 (talk) 01:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

In general, European releases are identical to American releases, just with extra languages added on and, in this case, a different name on the title screen. ie plots are identical in the English language at least U-Mos (talk) 14:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the links below prove the European site is inaccurate, but if they don't satisfy you, then we will have to wait until the game is released to resolve this issue. Besides, the plot section cannot be finished until the game's release, so I don't see why we should be in a hurry to add more to it anyway, especially when a new source of info has details that contrast sharply with other sources.

• http://www.gamespot.com/video/943675/6181049/advance-wars-days-of-ruin-interview-1
• http://ds.ign.com/articles/827/827344p1.html

Comandante42 (talk) 19:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Advance Wars 4 Cover.jpg

Image:Advance Wars 4 Cover.jpg 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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

fixed-- penubag  00:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Speculation/ original research

I have seen the pictures that have been cited in recent changes pertaining to the plot, and know that their credibility has been in doubt since their release some weeks earlier. They appear to be either fakes or as yet improperly translated/localized. Besides this, though, the info added to the article differed greatly from the the content of the pictures themselves, and is thus assumptive speculation. Since the game is only a few weeks away from release, we can wait to see if the speculation is true; we just can't add it in, because it can't be concretely proven or disproven as of yet. Comandante42 (talk) 20:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how it could be fake or why translation would even matter. The images here, here, and here are all official and all show the owl for the Black army. if you look closer on the scientist's coat you can see the owl emblem with the words Intelligent Research Sy... imprinted on them. The same could be worked out with the Yellow Dragon Ruber Armed Forced along with Grayfield and the other commander with the same emblem, in addition to both their appearences as the yellow army in screenshots. The red army also has a wolf for an icon, coinciding with the name Brenner's Wolves and the icon at the beginning of turns seen in the videos. I'm sorry but I couldn't tell if this is original research or not, so I apologize if it is and we could wait for the game's release. Tsuruya-San (talk) 20:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I have removed my previous responses here, as they bordered on turning this topic into a forum. Summarized, I accept that your view of the plot may be correct in the end, as it seems viable when thought out in context with the confirmed facts. Unfortunately, your sources aren't enough by themselves to prove the theory, and thus the info added to the article falls under original research. Waiting for the game to be released is definitely the best course of action here. Comandante42 (talk) 22:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Plot cut off.

The plot section as it currently stands makes it seem as if the plot ends with Brenner's death, something which I'm sure is not the case.

Having said that, I'm not sure exactly what happens next so I don't know what should be used for a placeholder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.19.18.166 (talk) 22:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The plot is unfinished. Currently, it summarizes the major events up to mission 16. I'm updating the section as I play the game, so the plot should be complete in a few days. Keep in mind the game was released only a few days ago, so updates like this do take some time to fully incorporate into the article. I'll add something to the plot section to clarify. Comandante42 (talk) 22:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Forgot to mention here earlier that the plot summary now covers the entire campaign. Only vital details have been left in to conform to WP guidelines.  Comandante  Talk  22:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Ethnocentric Bias?

In English Speaking Europe, all the CO's and Countries go by different names to the american ones. Could this be highlighted in a "Version differences" subsection at all? Please note this isn't merely a translation issue, given that I'm specifically refering to ENGLISH LANGUAGE PAL region carts.

62.231.137.138 (talk) 09:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Varying names are listed in the 'list of COs' article. I don't know if it's important enough to warrant a subsection in this article, and I'm not being dismissive, I'm in the PAL region. God knows why they just don't keep the names the same. Perhaps a very clever editor will come up with a solution, and please, no-one suggest putting the PAL name in brackets after the NA one, that would be terrible. Geoff B (talk) 09:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Erm, mentioning the different names once would be OK, I think. It's worthwhile mentioning the differences, which is why I created the "regional differences" section - even the level names are different (for example, the Great Owl is known as something else entirely). Tim (Xevious) (talk) 06:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I would much rather see this as being merged and then redirected rather than a simple redirect unfortunately I haven't played the game. If there is no objections or no one actually merges in the info in an adequate amount of time (say a month?) then I am OK with the redirect. --Sin Harvest (talk) 02:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing to be merged. The necessary information is already covered within the plot section, and people can expand upon that in the CO section if they would like (though that's more about the gameplay side). TTN (talk) 02:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

No. The article is there to talk about the game. COs in their own section(article) is fine.DeathMark (talk) 06:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The redirect alone is fine. Only a short list of the COs would be necessary for the main game article, like the one on Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, but with fewer details (name and faction affiliation only, perhaps). Comandante42 (talk) 21:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that List of Advance Wars: Days of Ruin COs should be merged with List of Advance Wars COs and Advance Wars: Days of Ruin COs should only merely be mentioned in the DoR ariticle. -- penubag  02:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest otherwise; this article on DoR COs can be left alone so it does not clog the actual DoR page. Per AfD transwiki and delete decision for List of Advance Wars COs, I already foresee a tremendous amount of clutter that will end up in the Advance Wars page, so there is no need for more. (I personally feel that keeping the pages separate can be far more efficient than combining and cluttering everything together - see List of Front Mission characters and Front Mission) Pasonia (talk) 17:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest, instead of merging this article with Days of Ruin, we merge it into the Advance Wars CO list. I agree that the DoR COs do not really fit into the normal Advance Wars continuum. However, seeing as how they're both technically from the same series, it may be more organized to simply put this list of COs at the bottom of the Advance Wars CO page and having the current DoR CO page redirect to the AW CO page, rather than having another separate entry for the DoR COs. Casull (talk) 08:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The main list has been transwikied and deleted per an AfD. This was should become a redirect or likely share the same result in an AfD. TTN (talk) 13:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Removal of tactics/strategy discussion

Should this not be archived at the least? Should we not keep the one thread which was home to proper debate? Tim (Xevious) (talk) 06:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, an archive would be good, I'll set one up unless someone opposes-- penubag  (talk) 07:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea, when V-Dash wasn't involved there was some good discussion. Geoff B (talk) 07:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

V-Dash may still come back as another sock - autoblocks only last 24 hours, and his IP is not directly blocked. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 08:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It's kinda silly when the legacy of V-Dash stops all of us having a discussion on strategy/tactics issue again. It's like succumbing to his malevolent cause. Let's have the discussion again and if he comes back, we can always ignore him later.Stevefis (talk) 01:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Mud. Pretty good idea that is. Bring a point up I need to. Plot seems a bit limited.KipVeryMadFan (talk) 19:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. SharkD (talk) 21:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

While this is off-topic, the plot was longer at one point but had to be reduced to meet WP guidelines. As for the strategy/tactics discussion, I would prefer that it be left in the past, but I see nothing wrong with the resumption of honest, constructive debate on the issue (as long as we get it done before another V-Dash shows up, whenever that may be).  Comandante  Talk  20:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

V-Dash is back again as GhostMask. Rejoice, ye peoples of Wikipedia. Geoff B (talk) 21:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

He's just been indefinitely blocked for vandalism and disruption, but not as a V-Dash.  Comandante  Talk  21:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm beginning to doubt that a resumption of this debate would do any good with V-Dash still popping up every now and then. Until we can make sure that he is gone for good (or long enough to conclude the debate), we should probably wait a bit. Right now, any debate we start is likely to be interrupted.  Comandante  Talk  00:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

According to Alison, he's using multiple IPs with no common range. As such, and given that all of the socks today have been targeting me and only me, I'm willing to semi-protect the talk page so that the debate can go on in peace should he pop up again. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 00:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think carrying on the discussion will be problematic, he's not exactly subtle, and cannot put together a coherent argument. The best he's been able to do so far is parrot some of the points brought up by others. Geoff B (talk) 00:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

He may not be subtle, but he has a very narrow view of a topic (see Talk:Pokémon Diamond and Pearl (possibly its most recent archive) for an example of what I'm talking about) and does not see a middle ground. His user page even once proclaimed that he "[was] always right". -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 00:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Map designs

I think it's worth noting that many of the multiplayer maps are highly unbalanced, in particular the ones which are used in random order in World matches on WFC. Many maps are symmetrical, giving the first player a proven advantage (if moving second conferred any sort of advantage, player one could simply not move and gain the second turn advantage along with an extra turn's funding); furthermore, many maps give one player an absolutely overwhelming economic head start that cannot be effectively countered.Lindsay40k (talk) 01:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I edited the section on online play to mention these issues, however I'm not sure how to link to the section on first turn advantage in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn-based_game - little help, anyone? Lindsay40k (talk) 02:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

You link to an article by using double-brackets ([[foo]]); you link to a section in said article by adding a pound after the article name and adding the name of the section after the pound ([[foo#bar]]). -Jéské ^{(v^_^v :L13 ½-Raichu Soulknife)} 02:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.Lindsay40k (talk) 18:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure this info should be added, as it seems to be original research. Is there any reliable source that shows that players with a first turn advantage will win outright? Is there proof that the first turn advantage has a greater effect on the gameplay than a player's skill?  Comandante Talk 02:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

This addition now cites an in-game example of an unbalanced map and refers to the wiki on first turn advantage - which in turn cites external references, one of which is specifically based on the Advance Wars series. Neither of the wikis in question claim that FTA always guarantees a win or has more influence on the outcome than the players' relative skill levels; however, the latter does indeed reference an article demonstrating instances in AW in which first turn advantage can make victory impossible for player two.Lindsay40k (talk) 18:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I still believe it constitutes original research, and it still needs a verifiable source if it isn't. If there is indeed a significant first turn advantage in turn-based games, then it should only be mentioned on an article about turn-based games. There is no reason that a specific case of FTA should be mentioned on every single article with games that some think are affected by FTA. In my opinion, it's just like saying that the outcome of a game depends on sheer luck and not skill at all, which I do not think is the case.  Comandante Talk 19:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't quite understand exactly what you are referring to as original research?

Is it the claim that AWDoR has symmetrical maps that are randomly chosen for Worldwide matches? If so, the same can be said of the overwhelming majority of this article.

Are you saying that the claim that symmetrical maps in turn-based games raises the issue of first turn advantage is original research? If so, this is an issue which should be raised on the linked entry on turn-based games - which does cite external sources (you did go and check it out, right?).

If there is indeed a significant first turn advantage in turn-based games - nobody claimed there was, what is pointed out is the proven fact that FTA is an issue in turn-based games. I suggest you go and read the article cited as a source in the entry on turn-based games.

There is no reason that a specific case of FTA should be mentioned on every single article with games that some think are affected by FTA - Of course there is. In fact, when it can be mathematically proven that FTA exists in a game that is the latest installment of a series that has been developed for 20 years by one of the largest and respected software developers in the world, it is quite extraordinary and worthy of note that none of their testers have ever noticed it over this period.

In my opinion, it's just like saying that the outcome of a game depends on sheer luck and not skill at all, which I do not think is the case. It's a fact that was documented prior to my editing of this article (as I recall, without any demand for external sources) that the play order and choice of map in Worldwide matches is random. It's a plain fact that starting with 150% more resources than your opponent (as in the map cited - you want a screenshot to prove this? I can get a screenshot) puts you in an extremely strong position. It's a plain fact that being able to capture the one city in your half of the map and at the same time block your opponent from doing the same simply because you got to move your units first puts you in an extremely strong position that owes absolutely nothing whatsoever to your skills as a player.

Imagine flipping a coin to determine who gets to fire first in a shoot-out. Where is the skill element? On huge, complex maps, it's less of an issue, but on small, simple maps (as are often used in AW), it's a significant issue.

I would say offhand that is extremely unlikely that one could play more than 50 Worldwide matches on AWDoR without having at least one in which it is simply not possible for one side to win against a capable player for no reason other than poor map design that does not take into account FTA. Lindsay40k (talk) 20:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:No original research for the official policy, as well as Wikipedia:Notability for the guideline concerning notability. And yes, you do make a good argument, but I don't believe that it is so important that it should be included here (per notability). Some players will be given an advantage and others won't, but Wikipedia isn't a gameguide (WP:GAMEGUIDE) that details every nuance of gameplay in a particular game. Anyone who plays a game knows there is a chance they will lose, but that doesn't need to be written out on every article; it's an obvious fact. This info should only be included in the article if it is put forth by a reliable source that the developers of this game did a terrible job in designing maps, and that this has resulted in a significant number of games being almost automatic wins for whoever has the FTA (in other words, it should only be included if FTA and maps are major design flaws that have a marked effect on the gameplay, which isn't the case from my experience). As simply as I can put it, in my opinion this detail is just too trivial to warrant mention.  Comandante Talk 20:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking through the maps just now, it's pretty certain at least 25% of the maps used to generate Worldwide games have got significant FTA issues that give one player a significant advantage, and at least 10% of the maps are simply unsuitable for play full stop. The fact that a game is unfair roughly one third of the time, awarding victory automatically to a bike/recon rush from player one, is a significant issue that should be noted.

As for whether this all constitutes original research or is from questionable sources; the only place we will see detailed analysis of this game - or any game - is within the gaming community. Mainstream, "trustworthy" media sources simply aren't going to have gone into enough detail, given that they'll have produced their reviews to deadlines (and, especially in cases such as this, prior to the emergence of a busy online gaming community). Gaming is not a field that boasts peer-reviewed journals comparable to Physics Review; the guidelines laid down by Wikipedia essentially amount to restricting our sources to websites trying to sell advertising space and produce articles to deadlines with few retrospectives, whilst ignoring the views of dedicated gamers simply because their analysis is not going to be published by editors whose primary concern always needs to be attracting as much traffic as possible.

As a compromise, how would you feel about the article stating that the point of view exists that FTA and poor map design are significant problems in DoR's WFC mode, citing a number of sources from gaming community websites? Lindsay40k (talk) 00:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that's OR. As for your argument above, we cannot include fansites because they do not have editorial control or cite any sources themselves, making it impossible to verify what they say. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v :L13 ½-Raichu Soulknife)} 01:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, but that seems to mean that if an article (written by a journalist with limited time to familiarise themselves with a title before editorial deadlines) mentioning a flaw (in a feature said journo could not possibly have fully tested prior to the title's commercial release) cannot be found on commercial games sites that have to sell advertising space to the companies that send them review copies of games, a Wikipedia article isn't going to acknowledge the flaw.

I have to wonder why nobody is marking as needing verification the claims that, amongst other things, Advance Wars: Days of Ruin is the fourth game in the Advance Wars series of video games; New land units include the Bike... the Flare... the Anti-Tank... and the War Tank? Is this not original research? Furthermore, the explanation of the scoring system in Campaign maps is marked as needing citation - given that it's unlikely that the editor of any commercial site will hire a journalist to blatantly plagiarise fan sites/unsourced Wikipedia articles write an article on this, is this likewise going to remain a suspect claim in the eyes of Wikipedia long after the gaming community has mathematically proven it to be true? Lindsay40k (talk) 03:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Most of what you listed is all be cited (each paragraph is completely cited by the citations at the very end of them). Anyway, I may not have made the policies, but I follow them; it's just how the cookie crumbles I suppose, stuff like this is why Wikipedia has met with criticism. As for the calculation system determining the scores, quite frankly I just forgot about that. I actually found a source for it a while back, but since it was only a fan site I was planning on removing the statement; somehow it slipped my mind.  Comandante Talk 04:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

All right, took care of that little problem. Back to the issue at hand: Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia, and thus maintain an encyclopedic format, prioritize what is included within it, and present quality content. Not everything that can ever be calculated, thought of, inspired, puzzled out, etc. is supposed to be put into WP, and as such, things do get left out. This just appears to be one of those things. If there was almost any source other than an independent fansite, then the statement could be kept; if one can't be found, then it will have to go at some point.  Comandante Talk 04:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Well if no "proper" website runs an article mentioning the fact that symmetrical maps have FTA issues, then I suppose we'll just have to ignore it.

However, that is a separate issue to the fact that the maps listed have got massive differences in player starting properties. This is no more original research than the instances too numerous to mention in this article where figures are given about the game with absolutely no supporting evidence. Hell, half of the sources I checked up contained hardly anything relevant to the paragraph that cited them; it's almost as if someone wrote this wiki as they played through the game and added random web articles as sources without checking if they actually supported their original research.

If this article is going to meet the criteria you are setting, it has to have a major overhaul, not just to this section.Lindsay40k (talk) 15:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The game itself serves as supporting evidence in this case as it's already been released; see also Super Smash Bros. Brawl and Pokémon Diamond and Pearl. There need be no cite for things that are part of the core gameplay. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Detarder)} 17:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Most of the article was already in place before the game's release, cited and everything. The only things added after the release were the majority of the plot section, the reception section, and I think a screenshot.  Comandante Talk 19:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, since this has gone on for about a week, I say it's high time that we begin moving to a close. I believe that the material in question should be removed, as it cannot be supported by reliable sources and is mostly game-guide-like. Just because some maps are slanted in favor of one player or the other does not mean they were intended to do so and that everyone should be aware of it. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be something where gamers can warn each other of what parts of a game are difficult or unfair, whether it be part of an FPS level or a multiplayer strategy game map. Game guides have the capacity to do that, as do forums and fansites, but Wikipedia is none of those and doesn't have to go into such specific detail.  Comandante Talk 20:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

GAN Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

A great article, no significant flaws present.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   One big conflict in the past (January 2008 Genre Debate), but otherwise no problems.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   After extensive review, I find this to be a well-made article overall, but it may need some work if you plan to take it to FA status. Consider a peer review before taking that step since I really can't suggest anything more to do. Congratulations on making GA, though! Deltagreen23 (talk) 00:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Removed units?

It mentions new units but what about units that have been removed from the previous game —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.172.183.147 (talk) 14:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

If some units aren't featured in the game, then there's no point in mentioning that they are gone. This is an article about one game out of the series in particular, not a mere summary of differences from the last one. Besides, someone new to the series reading about this game for the first time doesn't need to know about the older installments to play. -- Comandante {Talk} 19:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Nominations

Just curious, but do you plan on replacing the nominations with other awards that this title's won?

No?

Then stop removing them.

They are notable if there are few to no other awards that the title has won. It's common sense. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Common sense to you, purposeless to me. Firstly, nominations simply aren't notable. Your reasoning that if a game didn't win any awards so nominations become important makes no sense, as nominations in and of themselves aren't awards and you are treating them as if they are. Secondly, how do you expect me to replace the nominations when you know very well I can't because there's nothing to replace it with? Policy doesn't mandate that for every item I take out of an article I need to add something back in. Lastly, in response to your edit summary, mine wasn't intended to be at all deceptive. I considered everything I had done in that edit fairly insignificant, including removing your info again, and thus classified it all as "minor revisions." I usually try to keep my summaries short and simple. -- Commdor {Talk} 18:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

What? So being nominated for Game of the Year, being the second best game of the year, isn't notable because it's a "nomination"? There's commentary in a title receiving a nomination for an award. If a game doesn't win any awards, what you suggest is that we give it no commentary to that aspect of its reception despite existing. There is absolutely no consensus on whether a nomination can be considered notable, so I suggest you stop using that as an argument. And "reverting another user's edit" can never be and will never be considered minor by any standard. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion is being held at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Dispute over nominations being used in articles. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I withdraw from the discussion per my comment here. -- Commdor {Talk} 21:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)