Talk:WWE '12

PC version "Leaked"?

Various sites are out there claiming that a PC version of the game was cancelled and then "leaked" in quantities. I suspect that it's a hoax, promoted by scammers trying to get people to fill out surveys, but does anybody know. I hesitate to post the links as they could be considered piracy promoting. But if you google "wwe pc limited edition" or look it up on youtube. Of course it could easily be faked (and the video looks suspiciously like the console versions, but then that could also be real too). It is certainly possible to play the Wii version on a pc via emulation already. But if a PC version existed, that would certainly be relevant news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.20.243.213 (talk) 21:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Possibly non-constructive edit

This edit changed the following things:

• Changed the infobox template name to the one for the redirect
• With explanation, reverted my change to have the system names later in the lead
• Reintroduced the advertising-like copy in the gameplay section from my attempt to make it sound more neutral
• Added a roster list, which has been discouraged in previous wrestling video game articles (see Talk: WWE All Stars)
• Removed two references leaving one and oddly enough the single source template from the top

I've reverted the user a few times, but I don't want to violate WP:3RR. So if anyone else thinks these edits are not constructive, please revert. --Jtalledo (talk) 01:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I take it you are not allowed to add a roster. Other fighting game pages have a roster included.92.235.168.144 (talk) 14:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

No, current consensus is not to include a roster list in wrestling game articles. See Talk:WWE All Stars for additional information. --Jtalledo (talk) 00:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

OK. Everything until the official roster is revealed during August is hearsay anyway.92.235.168.144 (talk) 15:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The roster will be revealed in 5-10 minutes!86.184.86.42 (talk) 20:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

A games roster is one of the largest factors especially a wrestling game so including the roster for this game is more than reasonable its crucial, in game characters are always a major selling point for these games Wrestlings Savior (talk) 09:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

No it's not crucial at all. Continued roster additions will just get reverted back. It falls under WP:GAMEGUIDE, and that is something Wikipedia isn't.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 11:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I read the WP:GAMEGUIDE & it says nothing about Rosters fella plus I wrestling game pages should be taken under the same notion as all other combat sports game ala UFC Undisputed 2009, UFC Undisputed 2010, Fight Night Round 4, etc that all include rosters. NOT including them would be disrespecting wrestling games as combat sport simulations, and saying that they're "too big" is not fair since no licensed wrestling game has ever had more than 80 characters unlike the aforementioned UFC game had more than 100 fighters Wrestlings Savior (talk) 21:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I never said WP:GAMEGUIDE was inclusive of wrestling games, I stated that roster lists in wrestling games fall under that guideline. But while you are sitting out for awhile, you need to read this, this, this, and this. It will help explain to you WHY roster lists are not including in WRESTLING games only.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 12:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Even in fighting game topics, they can just make a page for all the characters instead of creating individual ones, like with the Tekken games. There's only a few exceptions, like if the character's page was too long to slot in with all other info. Wikipedia has topics for wrestlers cos they are real, and not just in-game only characters.92.235.168.144 (talk) 13:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Breaking Point wikilink

I think it should remained wikilinked. It's clearly named after the event, which is relevant information. Only the words "Breaking Point" are linked, so it's not like people will get confused regarding that. If you remove the link, at least mention that it's name after the pay-per-view. --Jtalledo (talk) 23:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

And just what is your source for this? In-game doesn't count, it needs to be substantiated through other third-party sources.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 12:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

That's precisely why it's wikilinked. No claim is made in the article that it's named after the pay-per-view, but the wikilink lets people know that it shares its name with a pay-per-view. Not too thrilled with the tone of your response either. I know as much as everyone else that things need sourcing. I didn't just fall off the boat you know. --Jtalledo (talk) 13:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Why not just use the generic term for now then? I feel the fact that it shares a name with a PPV is irrelevant. The review I saw online said nothing about it.  ArcAngel   (talk) ) 23:47, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Why all the acrimony towards the link? It's not intentionally misleading (e.g. your first sentence, which I take as facetious).As I said, it tells people that might not know that is shares its with a pay-per-view that WWE produced, which they might not know. It seems like the only argument is "I dont' like it."--Jtalledo (talk) 23:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not that I don't like it, it's the fact that the generic term fits better within the tone of the article, but the way it is worded, it is unclear as to "how" it is related to the PPV.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 23:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "fit", but the term is in title case, which clearly separates it from the psychology term. Anyway, if you really feel that way, I suppose you'd also want to link to rock (geology) instead of Dwayne Johnson. --Jtalledo (talk) 00:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

My point is, there is no explanation in the article as to WHY it links to the PPV, so it makes it confusing. Plus, I think you are misconstruing the context of the meaning. That's why I suggested using the generic term, because that it what I feel was the intended use of the term.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 14:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The article is about a WWE game. It's linking to an article on a WWE pay-per-view with the same name. Need we connect the dots from point A to point B? Or should we do as you suggest and link point A to point Zeta like you suggest. But my point is moot. You want to link to that, fine. Do as you will. Link to Breaking Point (The Outer Limits). Breaking Point (2010 TV series) or even Point Break. Those are all legitimate links with that line of thinking. Or delete the link, sentence, word whatever outright if it shines your fancy. Just leave me out of it. --Jtalledo (talk) 18:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Chavezjulio, 1 September 2011

Chavezjulio (talk) 23:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

23 titles?

Cory said on Twitter that WWE '12 will have 23 championships in it. This could be mentioned with a citation, but obviously, we don't need to list 'em all on the article.92.235.168.144 (talk) 14:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Twitter cannot be used to source that info since it is considered an unreliable source.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 22:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit: Spelling.

I see. Well, they'll probably put the full list on the THQ roster page soon.92.235.168.144 (talk) 19:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Cover Art

The dialogue under the box art says Blandy Boreton, instead of Randy Orton. Just thought I would bring it to your attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.250.113.179 (talk) 20:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

•  Already done --JC ^{Talk to me} _{My contributions} 05:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Bigger, Badder, Better

I noticed that "Bigger, Badder, Better" was not included in the article. It's the slogan, if you may call it, of the game. I am not sure whether it was intentionally omitted from the article or it was unintentionally left out. If it was unintentionally left out, just add it with a reference like this:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by JCRules (talk • contribs) 10:01 am, 9 January 2012, Monday (3 months, 1 day ago) (UTC-8)

Edit request on 28 May 2012

triple h is the outsider jacob cass is the heroic one 76.26.176.105 (talk) 21:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Not done for now:Explain how Triple H is the outsider, when Triple H is an actual wrestler. Jacob Cass is only a guest.--Mjs1991 (talk) 10:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

in the game "Hero story" is you play as Jacob Cass and the "Outsider Story" you play as Triple H source: http://www.ign.com/wikis/wwe-12/Outsider_Story 76.26.176.105 (talk) 22:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Not done: not really an explanation Mdann52 (talk) 17:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Please explain what you mean by that 76.26.176.105 (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (just like other games this is a video game and there is no other valid reason to delete) --123.237.59.157 (talk) 20:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Addition to the "Development and Release" Section on the Page

This would be appropriate to add the following information into the section:
On September 27, 2013, it was announced by Aubrey Sitterson, the interactive marketing manager for WWE Games at the time, that on October 29th, 2013, 2K, the new license owners after THQ's bankruptcy, would shut down the online support for WWE '12. This meant users would no longer be able to upload and download Community Creations content or play online multiplayer matches.

References

Roster

There should be information about the roster. (Last game of John Morrison, as an example.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.Davidovic (talk • contribs) 01:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Protected... Still?

Why is this article still semi-protected, is it under threat of being vandalized? 98.19.211.157 (talk) 20:50, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on WWE '12. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121102034013/http://wwe.thq.com/go/article/view/251539/inside-wwe-12-universe-mode---part-1 to http://wwe.thq.com/go/article/view/251539/inside-wwe-12-universe-mode---part-1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110905163441/http://wwe.thq.com/go/view/roster to http://wwe.thq.com/go/view/roster
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111213165837/http://wwe.thq.com/go/article/view/251517/wwe-12-dlc-pack-1-roster-profiles-revealed to http://wwe.thq.com/go/article/view/251517/wwe-12-dlc-pack-1-roster-profiles-revealed
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120302163512/http://wwe.thq.com/go/article/view/252593/wwe-12-title-update-notes-and-dlc-mysteries-revealed to http://wwe.thq.com/go/article/view/252593/wwe-12-title-update-notes-and-dlc-mysteries-revealed
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111206031543/http://palgn.com.au/playstation-3/19939/wwe-12-review/ to http://palgn.com.au/playstation-3/19939/wwe-12-review/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

"Generally Positive" reviews?

I take it whoever wrote the summary in the Reception section of the article doesn't understand how to use the correct term to describe a piece of work's critical reception. That, and/or they may be biased towards WWE '12 in a positive way. Otherwise, they would know that 9 mixed reviews and 6 positive reviews equates to generally mixed to positive reviews, not generally positive reviews. I think this should be changed to more accurately summarize the critical reception vis-à-vis the review scores displayed in the reviews infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.197.176 (talk) 03:27, 29 July 2020 (UTC)