Talk:StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty/Archive 5

message: For the second paragraph in the units section, I'd suggest writing it this way:
"The video demonstration also revealed new abilities that encourage more complex interaction with the terrain.  Among the units shown so far, two were able to traverse varying levels of terrain [14], another becomes more powerful after making a number of kills [17], and another can teleport short distances for pursuit or escape [16]."
This is just to make i more clear that these are not the same units that have all these abilities.12.182.100.224 14:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. This is a much better rewrite. bob rulz 06:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small Paragraph Change Suggestion 

message: Click here for more info. --SkyWalker 06:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Starcraft II details from PC Gamer 

message: I was reading the article and I noticed it mentions that Blizzard has stated that the game will not be released in 2007.  This information sites the first reference, however upon reading that article I found no information in it saying so.  I've heard a lot of debate about the release of the game, and as far as I know Blizzard has said nothing of the release date.  Should the sentence stating that the game will not be released this year be removed? --Dan 09:47, 28 June 2007 (ET)
:From the source:
The only thing I can give you [that’s] concrete is it’s not going to be this year. Some people were hoping, because of how advanced the game looks, that we’d have it out by Christmas, but that’s definitely not happening. --Haemo 01:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While there is no concrete release date yet, I found out at a GameStop that it is scheduled for the fall of 2008. In my opinion, it is worth waiting for. Chronolegion 15:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record - the GameStop release date appears to be a placeholder date. Don't give it any weight. --- RockMFR 16:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Never believe any store's release date. They are required to give a release date to advertise a product for sale, even if there is no official date given by the company producing the product. Amazon, GameStop, etc. just make up a date and often copy each other when they change dates. -- Kesh 19:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, he says that, but he also says (I don't know if it's in that video) that Blizzard is trying to be more ambitious with the release date than 3 or 4 years. darthsuo 19:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: It sounds like a sarcastic remark pointing to starcraft: ghost. Toxic Ninja 11:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Release Date issue? 

message: Since I don't see any problems with the article as I see it, I'm bumping this up to B-class. However, this article won't be eligible for Good Article status for a long time because  implies inherent instability. I'd also like to take a moment to remind editors that, no, lists of units/buildings/whatever are generally not kosher, here or in their own article. Nifboy 09:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds fair. I'm sure the overall quality of the article will be greatly improved once the game is released, and likely to reach the same status as StarCraft. --Scottie_theNerd 09:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Assessment

message: Just to clarify, I think the phrase "several years after Brood War" should be left as is, with no precise date set yet. Ghost was 4 years later, and I've heard a source say that SCII is 4 years later as well, but PC Gamer says 10 years. And, seeing as how that constitutes a conflict of sources, I suggest we simply say that it is several years until such time that more sources come along to confirm the exact time. The Clawed One 01:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep; in a conflict, go for the most accurate statement that encompasses both.  --Haemo 02:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Timeframe

message: Sorry I am sort of new to this talk thing but anyways I read in the Wiki article that there are only going to be 3 Races that are playable how are we sure on this? I haven't seen blizzard officially announce that they will only have 3 races. Also the source for that part doesn't mention anything about there only being 3 races.
:From the horse's mouth
:No fourth race. We talked a lot about it. We ultimately decided we wanted to focus on the three races we had. 
:--Haemo 22:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Blizzard has instead decides to amplify the difference between the 3 races they have now. I saw something somewhere about a 4th NPC race, but I doubt it. The Clawed One 23:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text: They did the same thing factions in Brood War: Rayners raiders was present but not playable in the campaign mode. Me thinks they be revisiting the idea. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that the hybrids will just be hero units, because they are still a very new race. They can't have grown into a devoleped race like the other three in the space of the few years between games.--Duckfootx 21:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, if you read Blizzard's wording on Starcraft2.com's FAQ, they evade the "how many" question and simply state that the original three races will be returning. They never said Starcraft 2 will only have 3 races, and the fact that they evaded their own question is a little sketchy. -134.84.102.192 20:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Only 3 Races? 

message: Since I am a fan of Starcraft, I have to say that fighting over the information about units is just a waste. Like others have said, wikipedia is a general guide for information, but they haven't said more detailed information can be found at various fan-controlled specialty wikis sponsored by but not directly hosted on wikipedia, e.g. Wikia. The article should just be a brief introduction to the game, and then point readers in the direction of the off-site Starcraft Wiki in order to save space. However, I am really peeved that wikipedia will not provide comprehensive lists of online and print resources. --Zenoseiya 23:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a directory; that's what the link to Wikia is for :) --Haemo 23:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It sounds like he's all right with not having units here, but what he would like is a more thorough list (that is, a long External Links section and a list of related articles in print) to point people to where they can find that information.  Nimelennar 00:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I tried and failed --User:Krator (t c) 00:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Units/Buildings 

message: How about this...
The following units have been confirmed by Blizzard[1]:
*Protoss Zealot
*Protoss Immortal
*Protoss Stalker
*Protoss Phase Prism
*Protoss Phoenix
*Protoss Colossus
*Protoss Warp Ray 
--MooCow 01:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the rest of the talk page. Then sympathise with my poor temper. --User:Krator (t c) 01:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that no one sees the dam link at the bottom, so to do everyone a favor I put it at the top. Addictgamer 17:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  How do you know if they see the link or not?. Adding the link on the top is a bad idea. Please remove it. --SkyWalker 18:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I created a page based on units and abilities and started a debate here (up there). Then I saw that link and realized what a stupid move that was. Can't you please just leave that the way it is? What's the big deal about it? - common don't pick on every little thing, it'll do more help to everyone. Addictgamer 18:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I read over most of the debate and i think we should have a units list section. i dont understand why we can list each unit that is in the alpah and list on the website. if the unit gets the axe then we just remove it. whats the big deal. i honestly think more poeple want a unit list then those that dont.Rob1101 14:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Units section 

message: There already has been a good amount of criticism of Starcraft II that seems deserved, for example, many people have stated that SC2 looks alot more like WC3 than SC1, and its much easier to make the transition between WC3 and SC2.  The gameplay looks slowed down alot, nothing like the incredibly fast-paced play of SC.  It also has been stated that Blizzard basically fixed everything wrong with WC3 and gave it to the public as SC2.  Alot of this is not opinion, and has some factual basis behind it.  If the criticism is warranted with a factual basis, would it be OK to put out on the page?
O yeah and one more thing...
Fat, Slow Zerglings?!?!? WHAT WERE THEY THINKING?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.160.139 (talk • contribs) 20:10, July 25, 2007
*As long as you provide a reliable source for the information it can be placed on the placed on the main page. Be forwarned though, if it seems too odd or if the source is not reliable, it will be removed from the page.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.211.106.140 (talk • contribs) 21:00, July 25, 2007
**Please remember to sign your posts by putting four ~ symbols at the end. And yes, we need reliable sources before adding such things to the article. Keep in mind that forum & blog posts don't count. I don't see it likely that there are any reliable criticisms available, considering the game isn't even out yet. -- Kesh 21:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At this point I would just like to remind everyone to stay focused on the article, and not the topic.  --Haemo 00:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Besides being an awful game that would've been more appropriate for the Nintendo 64 than a PC game? Please keep on topic. --User:Krator (t c) 11:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: Has anyone heard anything about what type of engine will be used? I would like to know if the game engine for StarCraft II will be anything like the sage engine used for Generals or the modified one used for Tiberium Wars, or whether we will still have the some old one vantage point view provoded by the original StarCraft. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is, this doesn't say very much.  We're looking for specifics, not bland platitudes.  --Haemo 05:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Put simply, I want to know what game currently on the market I can look at and say "SCII will be similar to that in most respects". I don't see that here, hence the question. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably Warcraft 3 and Frozen Throne would be examples I would give.  They're dated, but they're most likely the basis for work on the SC2 engine.  Jack/Withersere 18:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmm, SCII on a Warcraft 3 engine. Sweet. Thanks for the educated guess. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: AFAIK, Blizzard is developing a new engine (probably based in part on the WC3 engine), not using an existing one... - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 21:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Exactly what I thought ;) Jack/Withersere 22:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Engine

message: Check out #7 under the citation/ref list area, there is no cite. Anyone know what that was supposed to be? TomStar81 (Talk) 03:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was the PC Gamer article.  When someone removed the text and citations for the Soul Hunter's ability, they also removed the reference to the article.  I've fixed it. Nimelennar 15:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation problems

message: The discussion revolving around the units that are present in the game world can be considered as being the characters that populate [any] game world.  Examples would include wiki articles listing the ships present in EVE-Online, various creatures encountered in the Metroid series games (previous to Prime even), classes available to characters playing World of Warcraft.  Point being, this game and others would be an empty world without these characters/units to populate it, even the returning heroes mentioned in the Starcraft 2 article are units in the game.  Maybe this is all interpretation, but seems reasonable enough on my part.  However, I am not interested in this article becoming a "game guide", people are right in saying that this resource exists elsewhere and it is not the purpose of Wikipedia to display such information.
I do also understand the issue that nothing Blizzard has shown is "final" and everything is in a very creative sense as of now, this almost seems an unrelated concern here as nothing on Wikipedia is "final" either, and an article can and will be updated by the community when the information is inaccurate or out of date.
About sourcing:  I guess I don't understand why Blizzard is not a good enough source for information made publicly available regarding the software title they are developing, maybe I misread a previous post that seemed to state as much?  So far the only information available about Starcraft 2 has been from Blizzard and everything else I've seen is just scavenged from them.
Jack/Withersere 05:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that other stuff exists is not an argument for inclusion.  Wikipedia is not a game guide, and a list of units serves no encyclopedic purpose.  --Haemo 06:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hate to be arguing about this again, but I disagree. So to avoid argument, I'll just conform, because I know nothing can change the opinion of the Wiki community as a whole. bob rulz 12:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, your disagreement is admirable, its the whole reason we have WP:BOLD and WP:IAR. The problem is that folks who wish to see the inclusion of units have no support from any of the Wikiprojects, and the deletion of so many so-called "gamecruft" pages sets a precedent against units from games appearing here. If you could get open support from one of the large projects here, or could write a page that survives afd based on regulated consensus (thus becoming a precedent setter in itself), then you might have a chance of adding such pages here. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only source of any possible inclusion of units is the Starcraft2.com site, not any demo they've previously released or magazine citation.  --Notmyhandle 03:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, these are the only ones that could really be considered canon in any way - with or without the inclusion of their individual abilities.
Protoss Units
*Zealot - Assault Warrior capable of charging enemies to close attack distance
*Immortal - Ranged assault support unit that has unbreakable shields only activated by heavy damage
*Stalker - High mobility scout/ambusher that can "blink" or teleport short distances to negotiate terrain, engage, or escape the enemy
*Phase Prism - Tactical transport, functions as a mobile pylon to power buildings or beam units already built into the local area
*Phoenix - air superiority figher capable of performing a "Death Blossom" type maneuver that does heavy damage to all surrounding targets, but leaves the craft defenseless for a period of time afterwards
*Colossus - heavy support unit that can step up or down cliffs
*Warp Ray - intended for long range bombardment, amount of damage caused increases steadily while beam is focused on target
*Twilight Archon - heavy assault unit created by merging two templars, attacks by throwing lightning
Really, I feel that this is just a pared down version of what is already available @starcraft2.com where all this info originated from...  Use it if you want.
I'm not sure of the actual mechanics involved with phase prisms, seems like there's lots of unanswered questions about these and other units right now...  
Do archons come in different flavors depending on the types of templars used to create them?  
Maybe just a list of the units would be better?  I know there seems to be a lot of disagreement over this article turning into a game guide, so...  [sigh]Jack/Withersere 19:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Starcraft 2 Units, Sourcing 

message: How come there aren't any comparisons between C&C:TW and SC2? I have seen many articles on this from reputable sites on the web and it is a valid point to be brought up. This is only one of many issues that this page has failed to address. 
As demonstrated by all the pages of text dedicated to whether or not a unit list is allowed, many people have dedicated significant time to the creation and expansion of this page. Why not focus those efforts on actual development and expansion rather than simply bickering along the same issue that while may be somewhat important is overly enforced. Clearly, the unit list movement does not warrant the level of resistance that it is getting. Those resistance efforts would be more productive if reallocated to other issues.72.134.104.87 22:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How come there aren't any comparisons between a game which isn't yet released, and is still in early development, and another game which is already released?  The answer should be self-evident when you consider the fact that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and I haven't seen any reliable sources which compare the two in a non-trivial way.  --Haemo 23:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: [agrees with User:72.134.104.87|72.134.104.87, counter-productive.] IMHO I don't really think TW deserves a comparison with SC2, TW made me think of Generals/ZH with different units/textures and very little else.  SC2 is promising to be a severe redesign of the original game.  Of course it might turn out to be something like WC3/FT with *Starcraft* units/textures...  Guess we'll know further into the development arc or when it's released? Yeah sorry, know this isn't a forum... Jack/Withersere 23:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Afterthought:  I'm not going to bicker about the unit list issue either, seems like that happened enough before I showed up recently...  Although, I did do a semi-quick infograb of all the units (not buildings) that were listed @starcraft2.com.  If someone uses this, great..  If not, also great. Jack/Withersere 23:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Needs Improvement 

message: I just found these pictures of the table top game...i wonder if the information should be included in the article or not...
TeamLiquid forums - —Preceding unsigned comment added by DivineBaboon (talk • contribs) 16:04, August 6, 2007
:First of all, please sign your cmments. Seconds of all, forums are not reliable sources. SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 20:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's already a StarCraft the Board Game article. bob rulz 02:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Starcraft 2 Table Top game. 

message: Pre-release reception of the game by critics (as described in previews) is an important part of this article, as it is a highly anticipated game. We already have some sections discussing what is coming, but a section describing how people like that is missing. Writing such a pre-release reception section before the actual release, and as previews are written, has great advantages above doing it afterwards. Writing about the conclusions and opinions of critics before the release of the game is difficult afterwards - see for example my writing in Supreme Commander#Pre-release.
Many of the articles already cited here can be used as sources for such a section. I can contribute by editing, but as I do not follow StarCraft II news, I think it will be better if the editors who do read every preview initiate the section. --User:Krator (t c) 18:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm really not sure what the point is. Pre-release reception is going to be a minor part of the article. After the game comes out, it'll be a minor footnote (one or two lines, most likely) in the general reception of the game. -- Kesh 22:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for a new section: Reception 

message: Would it be worth having a 'Story' or 'Plots' section detailing the revealed portions of Starcraft 2's storyline? Details such as the return of the Xel'Naga, return of main characters such as Jim Raynor and Zeratul and a foreshadowed apocolypse (as demonstrated in the Single-player Demonstration from Blizzcon 2007). - Alfreido talk 12:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't know what we'd even say at this point, or if there are any reliable sources to back it up.  --Haemo 01:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A preview was shown at BlizzCon that showed the first story elements, and I think it would be a great idea if we included it. bob rulz 05:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Story section 

message: A few parts of the article still refer to the original demo in korea. I think we should stop refering to it as "the demonstration" because there are obviously many demonstrations now. jay 19:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think everyone's too afraid to add actual useful information (that, y'know, people might want to know) to the article. It might become useful, god forbid. JMalky 19:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a link to the terran demonstration video, since that adds another big batch of units and abilities.  I'm not sure if any other videos are out there that would be useful or needed in the article, but it would be nice to add them if there are.12.182.100.224 02:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needs upkeep 

message: It was stated by the developers at Blizzcon that SC2 takes place four years after SC1. The best reference I can find at the moment is this one, which is an summary of the Blizzcon "Lore Panel" written by am attendee of the event. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 03:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Being a primary source, we could use it, but I'd rather have a secondary one. --User:Krator (t c) 11:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm unsure what secondary sources exist. Blizzard itself should certainly count as a reliable source, right? The only other sources I can think of would be gaming sites like IGN or GameSpot. Then again, the site I linked is a gaming site, albeit one dedicated specifically to StarCraft rather than games in general. The Wall Street Journal (or other major newspapers) might be a great source for many things, but I seriously doubt they'd cover "The Timeline of StarCraft". Anyway, my point is, what secondary sources are there for narrow subjects like video games? - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 02:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gaming media, mostly.  --Haemo 03:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

text: It is important to make the distinction between gaming media that are reliable sources (IGN, GameSpot), and those that are not (Fansites). The difference is mainly in the way the content is published: self published versus having a publisher. --User:Krator (t c) 13:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still wondering how PC Gamer got the idea that it's going to be 10 years later... Baejung92 00:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No idea...  Maybe they said "It's been almost 10 years since Brood War," referring to real-life time passing, and  PCG thought they meant 10 years in-game.  I believed PCG over IGN too when I saw the magazine, but the actual game designer trumps pretty much any other reference. Nimelennar 03:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elapsed time