Talk:RuneScape/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

RuneScape Wiki

I don't think Runescape Wiki is usually considered a major fansite. I know an earlier rule was just to stick with Zybez, Tip.it, and RuneHQ, has that changed? 76.27.55.64 (talk) 02:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

That consensus has not changed. But as I see it, the RuneScape Wiki is not really a fansite, so it isn't covered by that agreement. It's simply a wiki giving detailed information about RS. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 09:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with 1ForTheMoney —Preceding unsigned comment added by Al1012 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The runescape wiki is not considered one of the major three sites. My vote is to remove it. 75.163.240.140 (talk) 22:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: As a reference, when I referred to consensus in my previous post, I was referring to this discussion, which was the last discussion on this point. Digging through the archives will show that this has been established over a good period of time. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 21:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Mistake in content

It says "RuneScape Classic was closed to new accounts and restricted to paying members who had played Classic at least once since 3 August 2005, and once every six months after that"

I believe you misread this, you do not have to log in once every six months after that. You had to have logged in at least once within the 6 months following August 3rd 2005, but after that you never had to log into it again.

I would have put this on the main page but I can't. So hopefully one of you can, then delete this.

Edit: Here is the source of this. http://www.runescape.com/kbase/viewarticle.ws?article_id=752

StrawberryKitten (talk) 22:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Runescape HD critical reaction

The brand new graphics of Runescape, known as "Runescape HD" has recieved mixed critical reaction in the Runescape forums, mostly negative. Most players complain about the new look of the characters, certain items, and emotes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.30.240.20 (talk) 00:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

We need reviews from reliable sources. Forums don't count as a reliable source. Xenon54 01:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a review of the new graphics by 1up.com, which is published by Ziff Davis. See [1]. I am not sure if the site is generally considered reliable. Jim Miller (talk) 01:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Generally negative? Maybe if you were browsing the rants forum, not to mention forums are not a reliable source and cannot be used. 76.234.21.53 (talk) 19:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

If you were to check out the fan sites you'd get a different reaction, however neither of those are valid as sources so its utterly irreliventFlashNerdX (talk) 20:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Game Change Consolidation

Currently there are a number of repeated statements in the Rules & Cheating and Reception parts of the document covering the game changes from the beginning of the year. Does anyone has a problem with me putting them into one place? Both sections mention the negative reaction to the changes and both use the same reference, as they are so close together it makes sense to me to not repeat the information and I think it would go better in the Reception section (which deals with peoples opinions and reactions to the game) than the more descriptive 'what do they do 'Rules & Cheating' section.FlashNerdX (talk) 20:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

No objections so done FlashNerdX (talk) 19:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

New animations?

We need new animations to reflect the graphics updates. I can make animations. Tell me what we need an animation of, and I have no problem going and getting it. Tebuddy (talk) 19:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, you could just make copies of Tarikochi's images, only in HD. Maybe leave a few as a comparison. → C Teng ^[talk] 16:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

This is my account that has enough contribs to edit articles like these. I have made a couple and done my best to make them as smooth and as nice looking as possible. A few of them such as taris jad image and mime random I cant setup because of character and skill limitations (I cant for the life of me get mimed). So for replacements, I suggest already existing images that can be used in place. For example, to demonstrate barbarian fishing I have made Image:Runescape-barbarian-fishing.gif. For demonstrating combat we could use Image:Runescape-assisting-sir-vant.gif. For the monster we could use Image:Runescape monsters kalphitequeen-1stform-updated.gif. I havent given making a wardrobe one a shot yet. Joe3472 (talk) 13:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Might I suggest that the "player VS jad" image be replaced with a "player VS other monster" image, in that case? It wouldn't really remove anything from the article, since Jad means as much as any other monster to a non-player. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 17:04, 18

July 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: Well, you've kind of addressed the issue of "which monster to have fighting the player?", though you needn't use a huge boss monster; any mid-to-high-level monster will do. As for the wardrobe image, just get a couple of sets of clothes and cycle through them (that image could have a much smaller file size and still get the point across.) 1ForTheMoney (talk) 17:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I just made a mime one Image:Runescape-mime-random-event.gif, working on a wardrobe one now. Joe3472 (talk) 08:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment:Tarikochi has replaced the random event image with one of a "drill demon" event. Not sure if I like this or Joe3472's image just above. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 21:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Tari has it covered, there is no reason to fight. Joe3472 (talk) 14:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

probably you should do a picture about you fighting the kbd.Lucas8k (talk) 21:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, we could - but always remember that this article is written for a worldwide audience, not just RuneScape players. To non-players, the King Black Dragon is just another monster. For that reason, we can have an image of any monster and it still serves its purpose. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 22:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Addition to the history page

For some reason, I cannot seem to edit this article due to the semi-protection(My account has been made for a long while now, and yet I cant seem to edit it), so could someone please add in that the Free-To-Play version of Runescape HD was released on Monday, July 14, 2008?--Roflthatnoobgotowned (talk) 00:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Changed. You need ten edits to become autoconfirmed - while your account has been around since March, this post was your sixth edit, hence the inability to edit the article. Xenon54 01:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

German Beta

Reading this article, i've noticed that it incorrectly states there are four German servers. I have been to the German beta on the Runescape website, and there are 5 servers; 3 free, and 2 members. I am unable to edit the page, so I wish to draw attention to this matter. Smartstuff13 (talk) 06:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, never mind. There are correctly four German servers; world 147 is no longer on the German beta. Smartstuff13 (talk) 06:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure? I see World 147 is a members-only german world, making it 5 worlds, hence my change to that paragraph. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 09:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Runescape Unique Gameplay omissions

I am a former WOW player who has played Runescape for over 2 years now. The reasons I like Runescape over WOW or many other games out there are the same reasons I like playing Chess -- it takes a lot of planning and thinking and when your plans come together it is really rewarding. It is MUCH harder to level a character up on Runescape. I don't care about the graphics. I know I am not alone in this. Runescape is a lifelong game. I had several friends with characters in WOW, for example, who had multiple characters leveled-up to max. I know NO players personally who have doen this in Runescape. That's a pretty big difference from other mmorpg's. TO me (and many others) it is the most important difference. It is NOT a simple game. If you glance at the game it looks graphically simple, but so does chess. These "analysts" cited have obviously never played Runescape very long, or just glanced superficially at it and assumed it was similar to other MMORPG's in this regard. This is a HUGE omission! it is the main reason people stay with Runescape so long. Here is the relevant passage from the Wiki article:

Quote: "Its analysis posits that "RuneScape’s mass-market appeal lies in its simplicity and accessibility (both financial and technical). It has tapped into the vast market of games players unwilling or unable to spend premium prices on PCs capable of playing the latest, expensive, processor-intensive games. Its core gameplay concepts are very similar to its retail-distributed RPG and MMORPG analogues".[70]

The concepts are not similar. On the surface they seem to be, but earlier in the article you mentioned the more open game play without a specific path to follow -- you have to THINK much more about what you are doing and the skills and paths you take can be combined or put in various order to work together. Within each skill, the things you can do to level up vary in their difficulty and distances to resources which take careful thought and planning as well. As you level up, it gets harder to level. That is pretty core to the game concept, and contradictory with the quote I copied above, because earlier you say it has more open play than all the others. It is very intellectually challenging and not thinking about it and planning can leave you doing several times the work, making it nearly impossible to level-up. You can of course walk around all day simply doing nothing in the game, but if you actually play the game it is mind-numbingly complex. THAT is the game's main strength, along with being able to play anywhere. Most play-anywhere flash games are mind-numbingly simple -- this is virtually the only one this complex.

Runescape only looks simple. Just add a line that runescape characters take much longer to level up to maximum than every other game I know of out there. It takes more planning too. Runescape is harder. It is a challenging game. It is a much harder game than WOW, for example -- even though wow has more complex-looking graphics. This is a very important distinction. Somewhere it needs to be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiralsun1 (talk • contribs) 08:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

gree, but please sign your posts with four tildes. To be honest, I think RuneScape has arguably better graphics than "wow", now anyway. RuneScape does have more skills and costs less monthly, and you can do whatever you want without creating a new characters, for the most part. You can switch between any "class" at any time. 76.212.15.113 (talk) 11:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on whether one thing is better than another, but do you have reliable sources to back up your claims? If not, it doesn't go in the article. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 12:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

He does have a point about the portrayal of classes and professions compared to other games. Wow and GW for example focus heavily on choosing one class/set of skills and sticking with it while Runescape allows you to train any type of combat skill as long as your willing to invest time into it. That should not be hard to source. 76.229.138.207 (talk) 14:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

No source, no inclusion. Simple as that. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 00:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Why does there need to be a source on common information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.15.113 (talk) 09:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Because otherwise it's Original Research and I'm sure other people disagree. That's why sources are needed--  Darth Mike  _{(Talk • Contribs)} 09:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

How can you disagree with a statement like "Unlike many MMORPG games, Runescape does not limit a charachter to one class or profession"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.238.130.22 (talk) 04:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Whether we agree or disagree is irrelevent - it's still got to have a reliable source. And if you don't play MMORPGs (keeping in mind this article targets a general audience), it means very little. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 09:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The game is the source. ÇɧĭДfrĪĔпd12 (talk) 11:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

But the game itself is not a reliable source, or one you can cite - you need things like fansites, game reviews, etc. The bottom line, as has been repeated several times, is that if there is no source, it doesn't get included.

Look, I'm beginning to feel that this discussion isn't going anywhere. Unless someone is willing to come up with reliable sources to justify why this belongs in the article, it (to me, at least) seems meaningless to continue. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 11:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The game itself is a valid reliable source although it is a primary source. According to WP:NOTE, "These notability guidelines only pertain to the encyclopedic suitability of topics for articles but do not directly limit the content of articles." Since the game is a work of fiction, and the lack of player classes is a plot element, a primary source is acceptable. The comparison to other games is either WP:OR or WP:SYN. All that having been said, it really doesn't matter to anyone who isn't actually playing the game and the entire concept should be left out according to the guidelines of the WikiProject which says "Always remember the bigger picture: video game articles should be readable and interesting to non-gamers." A non-gamer wouldn't care about it, so there is no need to include it. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 13:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

JimMullerJr is 100% right on that one.FlashNerdX (talk) 14:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with JimMiller. Obviously the actual game is not a source, though its website is. But you have to be careful not to overuse primary sources, and you won't find the stuff being discussed here on the RS website. Secondary sources are needed and we don't have them. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 14:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Runescape Merchandise

On July 9th 2008 Jagex released the Jagex store which currently only holds one product: the Runescape Novel "betrayal at Falador" by T.S Church. Jagex has mentioned that more merchandise will be available, including many from the "Shop till you Drop" player poll which was conducted in April 2008(http://news.runescape.com/c=-5f5a3863/newsitem.ws?id=1300).trevor.eh (talk) 03:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

There is also another published book on the market: "Runescape: The official Handbook", written by Tracey West. This book was published January 1 2007 by Scholastic and covers the basics of the free version of the game (http://www.chapters.indigo.ca/books/Runescape-The-Official-Handbook-Tracey-West/9780439877725-item.html?ref=Search+Books%3a+%2527runescape%2527&sterm=runescape+-+Books). trevor.eh (talk) 03:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} There is a lot of vandalism on this page.

3 new server locations

they have 3 new server locations in, mexico, belguim, and norway. Mickman1234 (talk) 10:15, 5 August 2008 (ust)

they have also added servers for ireland, denmark, new zealand, and brazil. here's proof [http:// http://www.runescape.com/slj.ws?rs.x=35&rs.y=3]--Kanata Kid (talk) 13:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I cant edit

Hey i would like to say that the edit tab is gone on the article page.Is it because it is edited too much because i can edit other pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucas8k (talk • contribs) 18:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

That'd be because the article is semi-protected because of vandals. You need to be an autoconfirmed user to edit semi-protected pages (your account needs to have existed for 4 days, and made 10 edits). 1ForTheMoney (talk) 19:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Runescape history

Shouldn't we put in a section about runescape's history.It could be brief detailing what the god wars were and why guthix stopped it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucas8k (talk • contribs) 19:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I have a feeling that no matter how brief we keep it, it would be seen as too in-universe. There used to be articles about Gielinor and specific sections of the game; all were deleted/merged into this article.

Incidentally, too much in-universe material was one of the reasons this article was delisted from Good Article status. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 20:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Problems with the article

Several problems that need to be brought-up. I've had friends who've played Runescape (even I at one point) and I know there is stuff missing. Things that would allow for a more neutral POV, reducing the page's appearance as an ad. For one, in the article, it implies that the cost for Runescape was always around 4$ before being changed to 5$. I remember it was $15 in the recent past, around a year ago. They dropped the price over 50% due to many issues which I am about to bring-up. In the past there have been numberless hacking attempts and successful sabotages of game code. These were all from dissatisfied players some of my friends knew. On top of that, the article also fails to note a particularly notable glitch, the million gold shop, which caused around 50,000 to cancel their memberships. Finally, the most peculiar, after reading through page Runescape news articles, there is a negligence to mention these things, despite being known by . Articles were also evidently removed, as I remember many logs about removing glitches and trying to regain customer support. All of these need to be noted. I have not added these to the article for this would be a no-doubt controversial topic, especially if Jagex denies any of these events. Thank you for reading this and I must request members who wish to contribute to find evidence; get some members to speak-up and have them publicize it. I hope that this will pave a way to a more neutral POV Wikipedia, even through just one article. --Eiyuu Kou (talk) 01:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

when it comes to this "I remember it was $15 in the recent past, around a year ago." i've been a member then and it has been $5, wow is 15 if that is what your thinking, or another country's currency conversion to $15 USD71.111.83.72 (talk) 05:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Never been $15 a month and I have no idea where you got the idea from, nor the 'million gold shop' causing 50k to quit the game (unless you mean them trying to stop real money trading, which is already in the article and says that people left because of it). As for the rest of it whilst NPOV is important the lack of any verifiable sources means your claims for such things can't go up till you have them. "the veteran community" and "friends who've played" does not cut it - for what you need please go and checkWP:V.

Not to mention WP:NOR... It has been $5 a month for credit card at least... It is $10 for SMS because of extreme convenience.--Unionhawk (talk) 16:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

New Proposed External Link

I propose that we add a link to wikihow.com/Category:RuneScape. Thoughts? Eric-Wester (talk) 02:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

No. It doesn't add anything to the article. If people want more game information (how to play the game), the fansites and RuneScape Wiki give more than enough information. The page you linked to doesn't contain any information that cannot be found on the other fansites. Mathias-S (talk) 21:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed; I see no need to add this link. The "Frequently Asked Questions" banner at the top of this talk page will explain that, per consensus, we only have the 3 most-visited fansites according to Alexa traffic rankings. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 21:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

German Servers

They're are supposed to be 5 german based servers, with 3 of them being f2p servers and 2 of them being p2p servers. I can't edit it, so someone will have to do it for me. User:Froggie13 09:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...that appears to be correct, the world list says there are 5 german worlds. I'll make the adjustment. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 09:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

Something about this should be added to the official article:

RuneScape has also been also receiving criticism for Jagex's "lack of customer support" in response to the removal of the "comment on our service" button a few months ago. This button was the only way regular players could contact Jagex staff unless they were appealing an offence or submitting a bug report. There is very little interaction between Jagex staff and their players as it is and players are angered by the fact that they cannot contact Jagex for queries about the game. Right now, save the extremely rare case you run into a Jagex mod in-game, there is no way to talk with Jagex staff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by InkRaven (talk • contribs) 22:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Any proof?--Megaman en m (talk) 22:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOR (Butters x (talk) 15:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC))

To be honest there is endless proof of this. As an experienced player myself, I know how hard it is to contact a REAL Jagex employee about both major and minor issues. Take the instance that you are banned unfairly. No matter how passionate your appeals are and no matter how much proof you give that you are innocent, it amounts to nothing. You recieve an automated response which deams you randomly either guilty or innocent. Browse through Zybez RSC, there are humourous pictures in there of banned players using obscene language and personal threats in appeals, and somehow being unbanned. I acknowledge that Jagex staff are few in number, but with the amount of money the company makes, it SHOULD hire more people and expand it's customer support crew. I may have ranted and gone off-topic a tad, but I hope you see my point... A Prodigy ^(t•c•m) 20:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I think I do, but it doesn't matter how many players come on here and rant, it doesn't address what Megaman and Butters have said, and what I'm going to repeat: it cannot go in the article without reliable sources, something I'm saying an awful lot lately. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 20:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Way off

Runescape has something like, 125 million free players. Fix this please Twentilla (talk) 07:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I assume you were looking at the home page of RS, which says that 130 million accounts were created? Well, that number only takes the number of accounts that have ever been created, active or not. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 11:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, accounts created also includes permanantly banned bots, which accounts for around 50% of created users or something like that...--Unionhawk (talk) 16:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Err...no, it doesn't...50%? More like 10%...76.212.7.63 (talk) 00:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

---Theres really no way we can tell, right? So if we don't know, can we really put anything at all? 70.144.225.9(talk)

recent reviews

Can anyone add some reviews after 1 July?--Megaman en m (talk) 21:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Further up the page, User:JimMillerJr put forward [2], a review by 1up.com of RuneScape HD, dated 12 July (assuming I'm reading the American date correctly). The question was over whether it was a reliable source, but WikiProject Videogames seems to consider it so. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 23:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

new pvp update

On the front page of the website jagex stated that in the future they will offer unique pvp worlds. Should we put this in the article.Lucas8k (talk) 20:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we should, but we should only put in the article what Jagex has stated; no speculation. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 20:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Update: In the spirit of being bold, I've added a small paragraph to the end of the "Combat" section - I felt it easier to make a seperate paragraph than to try and integrate this into the existing paragraph on PvP Combat. My only real concern is how much detail to give on the subject. Ah well, people will edit and discuss. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 20:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Minigames?

I noticed there wasn't anything about minigames in this article. Should we atleast put something about minigames in this article? Infernal495 (talk) 19:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

If we explain every minigame the article will be too long and it will look like advertising.--Megaman en m (talk) 19:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

If you want something about minigames look for an article on runescape minigames and if u cant find nothing make one. if you can put a link in the runescape page.Al1012 (talk) 20:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

hi

im a registred user why i cant edit this page?

File:Gnomecopters.PNG

good!!!

--Sistemx (talk) 03:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Users who are newly registered or haven't made many contributions are unable to edit semi-protected pages. While you registered several weeks ago, you have only contributed to a very small number of different articles. If you have ideas for improving the article then you can say them on the discussion page and an autoconfirmed user can make the changes if they deem them to be appropriate. --RS Ren (talk) 00:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

And that image is copyvio. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

World Record: Addable?

Hey, just wondering if the fact about RuneScape being the #1 Free MMO needed to be added to the current article. (The Guiness Record) Mr freeze128 (talk) 03:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

No source, no adding. Plain and simple. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I think they should add that and this will show to the world that Runescape is now the 2nd most popular online game beating World of Warcraft(WOW) that is now number 3.Sorry for my lack of grammar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zird345 (talk • contribs) 11:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is says that WoW is number one.[3]--Megaman en m (talk) 12:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

WoW cant be number one because it isnt free, the offical runescape site is a source also you can find it on the offical Guiness World Records site —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.59.226 (talk) 14:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems like Guinness World Records either hasn't updated the website, or WoW is disputing the finding. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Runescape holds the world record for most popular FREE mmorpg in the world, so it should be addable. WoW can't dispute it because WoW is NOT free. According to the Runescape website, it is the 2nd year in a row they have won this award. Wolfbite110 (talk) 15:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Still couldn't find anything from Guinness World Records. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Wait for the book to come out. I don't think Worlds Most Popular Free MMORPG appears on the website, but I belive it does in the book. If Runescape is listed in this years edition of the book, then it deserves mention in the article. Wolfbite110 (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Found a reference somewhere other than the Runescape site so added it to the 'Reception' part of the article.FlashNerdX (talk) 18:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

to do: update the article

in the to do list there are three of the same type. update the article, Update the article to include the current changes and standards, and update the photos. and does anything else needs updating besides the photos?--Megaman en m (talk) 15:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Can't think of anything needing updating, apart from that photo of Jad (though you can replace that with any mid-level monster and it'll still do the job). Might as well change the list so that it only says "Update Article" once. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 16:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Update: I was checking out the latest news for RuneScape, and came across a news item,[4] which states that Jagex are selling RuneScape merchandise. Now, we have a section entitled "RuneScape in Other Media", which consists of one sentence. I wonder if this would be considered notable enough for the article? Thoughts, please. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 21:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

PC Gamer UK review

Afternoon, folks. I know I've lapsed out of this article now, but I thought I'd let you know: the current issue of PC Gamer UK (issue 192, dated October 2008 (yes, I know), pages 88-89) carries a full, proper review of RuneScape. 72%, not bad. I can post some excerpts if you want, and a cut down version of the review will probably turn up in a bit at computerandvideogames.com (PCG's publisher's website, does exactly what it says on the tin). Wonder if RS'll be getting the Yahtzee treatment next? CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 14:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)