Talk:Dreamfall Chapters/Archive 1

message: It appears someone has misunderstood what Tornquist was saying. From what I understand and if you read what he's said in the blog carefully Dreamfall is consider part 2 of the TLJ trilogy and Dreamfall next now Dreamfall Chapters is part 3/the final part of the trilogy. This duology/trilogy is often compared to Star Wars 4, 5 and 6 if it helps to understand where 5 & 6 are sort of a duology within the trilogy of 4, 5 and 6 Nil Einne 17:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While you were on it, you could've just deleted the whole paragraph altogether: it's misleading, ambiguous and unreferenced. In other words, unencyclopedic. ^^ --Koveras ☭ 18:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trilogy 

message: There is no official information on the release date at the moment, however, several sites claim, either erroneously or on purpose, to know it. Listing them here:
* GamingTrend: May 1, 2010
Considering that the production of the game has not even started yet, such reports are obviously misleading. --Koveras ☭ 11:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Release date 

message: I figure it would be wise to archive the talk page that came before the game actually went into production. So now we have a talk page that is for the page that has been restored. Oldag07 (talk) 22:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: New talk page

message: About my recent edit:
* There is no need for a separate subheading for Funding because the Development section is too short to be split into separate sections yet.
* The second paragraph in the intended Funding subsection was redundant to a sentence in the first paragraph, so I removed it.
* The Notes section is empty, so I removed it, too, until it is actually needed.
* The citations should go to the References section (sorted by publication date) and be linked from the appropriate places in the article. Otherwise, the text becomes extremely hard to edit.
As for the stretch goals, their standalone notability is dubious. Goals that are not reached and will not be implemented are not notable by default. Goals that will be implemented should be mentioned in an appropriate context, e.g. Mac and Linux support in the Release section, the Loremaster update in the Gameplay section, etc. Stretch goals like "The Longer Journey" are non-notable because they are too vaguely defined. --Koveras ☭ 08:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I see what you mean. Eventually however, with the sheer volume of secondary sources reporting on the campaign, a section could be made. Some of this information is noteworthy. I understand why now is not the time for it though. Oldag07 (talk) 17:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, if that section grows significantly longer than others, I'll be the first to split it into subsections. The bad example would be Double Fine Adventure, which consists of nothing but the development section at the moment and most of it is the fundraising section. --Koveras ☭ 17:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style 

message: Before this devolves into an edit war, let me note that I also view the amount of fair-use images in this article as excessive. The only ones whose inclusion is justified are the infobox image (which should, however, be replaced with the final box art as soon as it becomes available), and the Stark/Arcadia images, since they illustrate the dual world gameplay of the series. However, in the latter case,  should be used instead of a gallery tag to avoid problems with WP:NFG. The other three images (the screenshots of Zoe and Kian, and the concept art piece) contribute very little to the article, because the current character designs are work in progress, as the developers stressed on mutliple occasions, and are not indicative of the game's graphics in a long term, and the concept art generally has very little to do with the final product and should only be used in conjunction with screenshots of the final product to outline how the concepts evolved over time. --Koveras ☭ 09:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: By what standard are these "excessive"?  Yes the images above contribute significantly to the article.  They show what the game is about. There are no substitute images for these pictures.  And when the final product comes out we can replace them. All of the images on this page are promotional images and i don't see how this is harming RTG.  Oldag07 (talk) 14:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NFC requires minimal usage of non-free content, any non-free media harms our m:Mission. However limited restricted usage is acceptable. Unless the file meets WP:NFCC #1,3&8 (especially the second part of 8) the files need to be removed. Werieth (talk) 15:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  You fail to see the point, the use is minimal. Oldag07 (talk) 16:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you define minimal? I consider minimal to be zero. Also these fail the second part of WP:NFCC#8 (Example :File:Zoë Castillo Screenshot 1.jpg is not required to understand the article.) Werieth (talk) 17:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

text: Good thing your definition isn't the definition of minimal.  Oldag07 (talk) 17:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Policy requires as little non-free material as absolutely needed. Please explain why this article is required to include :File:Zoë Castillo Screenshot 1.jpg as far as I can see its decorative. Werieth (talk) 18:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

text: This does show the evolution of the development of the game.  Oldag07 (talk) 23:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: But they do not meet the bar set forth by the second part of #8. Any image can be useful, but the bar for including them is far higher for non-free media. The screen shots will be removed unless you can demonstrate how they meet #8. Werieth (talk) 00:06, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

text: Moreover, they do not show the evolution yet, since there is nothing to compare them with at the moment. "Showing the evolution" would require, for instance, a composite image of three face shots of Zoe (from the original Dreamfall, from the early stages of DFC, and from the released version). I know (but don't have a reliable source, sorry) that there is a large portion of the fandom who disliked the early DFC design of Zoe and the devs promised to update it, so if that statement is paired with the composite image described above, then it would be an illustration of the design evolution. Right now, the three images in question only show work-in-progress that became outdated soon after it was released. --Koveras ☭ 12:42, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only would Koveras's point need to be meet, there would also be a need for associated text and reliable sources to back that up (also the issue would need to be significant, not just interesting ) Werieth (talk) 13:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

text: "Minimal" is a subjective word.  I believe more could be put up. Moreover, if you look at most FA's, they have a picture a section.  I feel that what is on the page is necessary, another subjective word.  Moreover, this is not a FA. nor could it possibly be until the game is released. So why is it undergoing the scrutiny of one?  All the images are fair use because all the images are promotional. I really believe RTG would prefer to have them up. There is the letter of the law, and there is common sense.  The images make the page better, and they can be replaced when better images come out. I don't see the point of removing them at this point. Oldag07 (talk) 21:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: And yes evolution is shown. Concept art to game art.  It works. Oldag07 (talk) 21:11, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: However WP:NFCC#8 the second part has not been met, and files have been removed. Showing evolution by itself is not justification for non-free media. Please note that I have not called these files fair use at any point for a reason, Wikipedia uses the term non-free media because our terms and how we use such media is far far more strict than fair use. Werieth (talk) 01:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

text: I still don't think it is correct, but I can live with what you just did, keeping the Stark vs Arcadia sections. Oldag07 (talk) 02:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The FA articles do use more than one image, but the important part is that their images always have an immediate relation to the text they illustrate. Moreover, the FA articles represent the high quality standard that all articles on the same topic (i.e. video games) should strive for, so saying that "this isn't an FA, so it's OK not to comply with the guidelines" is a gross misinterpretation of Wikipedia principles. As for the promotional nature of the images, Wikipedia is not means of promotion, so the only images that should be uploaded are the ones that contribute to the knowledge value of the article, not the ones that the original creator would like to publish on a popular website. Lastly, I can hardly see a connection between the concept art (Zoe with her back to the viewers) and the screenshot (Zoe's face) in question, so the argument that those two somehow illustrate the art evolution is invalid, as well. --Koveras ☭ 09:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  FU images 

message: The rationale for using DMY date formatting in this article instead of any other is as follows:
* MOS:DATE lists it as an acceptable format and does not specify that another format is generally more preferable.
* MOS:DATEUNIFY requires that all date formatting within the article text be consistent. Citations may also follow the same formatting for the sake of simplicity.
* That the game is developed in Norway by Norwegians may not qualify as strong national ties to the topic, but it influenced the choice of date format, and Norway officially uses DMY, as cited in Date format by country.
Regards. --Koveras ☭ 08:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates format 

message: I am very iffy on whether its current form is best, since it takes way too much space for very little information that could be presented in a much more compact way. It also includes a lot of placeholder fields that could be omitted until further details are revealed, which would make the content even sparser. Lastly, those colored lines are a bit of fancy creativity that is a little out of place in an encyclopedic article. :-) --Koveras ☭ 05:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episode releases table 

message: We may be able to salvage some of the old Characters section contents for a new Casting section under production, so I am backing it up here:
: The game features three playable characters: Zoë Castillo, Kian Alvane (both of them previously playable in Dreamfall), and Saga, a new protagonist who appears as a toddler in the first interlude. April Ryan, the protagonist of TLJ and the third co-protagonist of Dreamfall, died in the previous installment, but her voice actress Sarah Hamilton is involved with the game, although to how much of a limited extent is still  undisclosed. () Zoë's voice actress, Ellie Conrad-Leigh, has expressed readiness to reprise her role,() but RTG have not officially confirmed her return. Gameplay previews thus far have featured Charlotte Ritchie in the role. British actor Nicholas Boulton will voice Kian, taking over the role from Gavin O'Connor.
: Other returning characters include Crow, Blind Bob, Benrime Salmin, Roper Klacks, Abnaxus, the Vagabond, Brian Westhouse, Emma de Vrijer, and Reza Temiz.
I figured there wasn't enough reliable info on the casting to warrant its own section, so I instead lumped it into Production. Since it is hard to find reliable non-primary sources for acting credits, I have used the game credits themselves as a ref. In the interest of easier verifiability, here is a link to a Let's Play with an exact time stamp of the credits in question. --Koveras ☭ 10:02, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casting 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Dreamfall Chapters: The Longest Journey. 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/20130304090413/http://www.gamespot.com:80/features/taking-the-longest-journey-home-6404653/ to http://www.gamespot.com/features/taking-the-longest-journey-home-6404653/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:39, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified