Talk:StarCraft (video game)/Archive 2

message: I propose (following the rather long debate above) that the references (as there are now 2) regarding Lee Seung Seop and his unfortunate death due to his addiction to computer gaming be removed from this article and only included elsewhere (ie Computer Games or Addiction articles). -Localzuk (talk) 18:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also note that this won't be the final say on the matter as it is likely to be closely tied. It will just give a more general indication of the viewpoints of those interested in this issue. -Localzuk (talk) 19:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment - It isn't against a policy, this allows for a consensus on the issue to be figured out. Wikipedia runs on consensus. The issues above seem to come to 2 sides, with 3 for removal and 2 for keep. This isn't consensus, so we are left in limbo - being unable to make a decision on it. Votes have occurred on many articles that I have worked on also, so I do not see the problem with a vote. It is not that I can't find a policy, it is that you interpet the notability policy one way, I a different way. As stated, I don't see it as notable enough for this article in particular. If we go by what has been said above, several people feel strongly about it and therefore we need to find out what more people think. -Localzuk (talk) 19:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When you said "The only way I see that we can solve this is to vote on it, afd style." I thought you meant that the vote would be final and would close the matter.  Your latest comments clarified that this is just to see where people are at.  In that case, I withdraw my rebuke.  Sorry for the misunderstanding.  David Bergan 20:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, it wasn't really your fault, it was my bad choice of words. -Localzuk (talk) 20:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment.  Many people have suggested Mr. Lee' death is commonplace or "fairly universal".  I disagree.  There have been other cases of people dying on online games, but these are people that shoot themselves while playing or otherwise commit suicide.  Mr. Lee's death is unique because he died of pure exhaustion and didn't commit suicide.  He literally played Starcraft until his body could no longer take it.  While many people have stated without justification that death by video game exhaustion is common, nobody has provided a single example of another case where this death has happened.  --Ryan Utt 18:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had a look and found this . It appears that a few people have died in similar circumstances. However, from the discussion above I have not seen people state that dying from exhaustion whilst gaming is common. I think the other comments are of greater importance though - that it is not that relevent to this article. -Localzuk (talk) 18:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment - Could you explain how it 'is clear tis guy was addicted to SC'? The articles only state 'StarCraft' briefly and go into detail only about his addiction to computer gaming? Also see the comment I have made below about the possibility that this is not actually a factual event and is a re-print of an event several years ago. I know it is inconclusive but the analysis made does make some good points. Cheers -Localzuk (talk) 23:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote for inclusion/removal of Death from game addiction reference

message: I have just done a bit of research and this article about sums up what I have found:.
Is it a hoax or re-creation of an old story? Can we find out any more about it? -Localzuk (talk) 18:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death from gaming a hoax? 

message: In the 'Multiplayer' section there is the sentence Some players dislike what have come to be called "money-maps", claiming that they change the game in negative ways, though others embrace the new style as another facet of a massive online gaming universe. I have re-added requests for citations on the 2 points (that some people dislike it and some like it).
I will remove the entire sentence unless citations for this claims are presented within a week or so. -Localzuk (talk) 00:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the sentence is quite pretentious. Money maps kill your skills, but they're fun. I wouldn't rely on citations when writing articles about computer games, though - the most qualified "experts" on these issues are the gamers themselves... --Chodorkovskiy 15:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter if it is about a game or not: wikipedia has a set of policies (citation, verifiability and reliability) which should be followed as much as possible. If something doesn't have a citation, it has no place here IMO, as it cannot be easily chased up and checked. In this case, it would lead the article being full of fancruft, which does not help the encylcopedia become better respected. -Localzuk (talk) 10:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's like asking a Native American on the Great Plains why he needs food when he can hunt Buffalo. He tries to communicate to you that the buffalo are nearly extinct, but you ask, "Please verify this. I need citations! I just can't believe your skinny starving self without citations." What do you need, a Starcraft Research Institute website set up to provide citations for every little plain fact that to anybody that has actually gotten on Battle.net or looked around a Starcraft forum is obvious? Like Chodorkovskiy said, it's the gamers themselves who are the qualified "experts" on these issues. If the gamers aren't credible, who are? -Concerned Starcraft player 4:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You must remember that this is an an encyclopedia, not a StarCraft fanzine or fansite of any kind. Therefore, it MUST follow the guidelines else it shouldn't be here. Original Research, which is what in your example is talking to people, is not allowed. This is not the place for it. If it is on battle.net then provide it as a reference... I am not saying that for games articles that you must provide the same level of reference as other articles, as that would be impossible (news articles etc...), so forum discussions and similar, IMO, are acceptable for referencing things. Gamers are not credible first hand, unless their is a way to back up what they say. For example, I am vegan, if I went over to the veganism article and started making claims without sources I would exepect it to be removed as unsourced - I am not an all-knowing force regarding vegans and no one person is an all knowing force regarding StarCraft. By pursuing this, you are showing a severe lack of knowledge regarding the need for sources and the need for verifiability - please read the policy pages to see why they are needed.-Localzuk (talk) 07:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd just like to point out that a little while back, this article made FA, with all that so-called "original research" in it.  We must have done something right.  Should an article that made FA really be trimmed this ruthlessly?  -Kasreyn 10:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The point is that it is easily verified by getting on Battle.net (a.k.a. playing the game). Just about anything posted on here related to multiplayer that is "unsourced" came from experience on Battle.net. The original "unsourced sentence" of this discussion, I would bet, came from experience on Battle.net. The game itself backs up the gamers. This isn't about all knowing forces, but about plain/obvious facts that many people who have actually gotten on Battle.net know about. If news articles etc. aren't needed and Battle.net/forums are alright, what's the problem? -Still Concerned Starcraft Player 11:33, 4 April 2006
Before we get into a what-WP-is-not debate, I'd like to remind everyone exactly what we're talking about:
"Some players dislike what have come to be called "money-maps", claiming that they change the game in negative ways, though others embrace the new style as another facet of a massive online gaming universe."
I, personally, just don't like the sentence. It contains a grain of truth, but in a very lame way: True, many people (me among them) think playing money maps is destructive to one's skill, but even those people often admit money maps are "fun once in a while". Whether the game is better on money maps or not is not the point. The people I know don't play money maps because they value their level of proficiency, not because money maps "change the game in negative ways." --Chodorkovskiy 11:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced sentence 

message: Wow, someone really did a number on the opening paragraph. I'll do my best to fix it, but it won't likely be perfect. {Master Deusoma 04:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm guessing you're new to Wikipedia...you can just go into "history", click on the version from before the vandalism, and press "edit page" and its back to normal. bob rulz 05:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serious Vandalism 

message: StarCraft also contains many direct historical references.  The High and Dark Templars obviously refer to the Knights Templar, a Catholic military order founded in Jerusalem around 1120. The Templars were the first warrior monks; their status as knights was continuously endorsed by the papacy.  Also, the Protoss Dragoons trace back to 18th century British cavalry, called Dragoons because their helmets made them appear to be dragons when seen from afar. Antioch, the site of the battle between Protoss and Zerg forces in which Fenix is killed, shares its name with a pivotal city in Palestine held by Western Christians for centuries during the Crusades.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.252.89.39 (talk • contribs) 
:I moved this to talk because it's obviously speculative, original research and POV, but still worthy reading. --Chodorkovskiy (talk) 16:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical references 

message: There is a distinctive sound, a scream (but not the Wilhelm scream) you can hear when you click on the barracks building. You can hear this screaming sound in other pop culture on many other incidents. Does anyone know the story behind it and why it is so popular? --Abdull 14:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's certainly not as popular as the Wilhelm scream, but I've noticed it elsewhere as well. For a really annoying example, watch The Medallion. They use it TWICE, and it is out of place each time.--SeizureDog 10:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't you mean the scream when you click on a terran academy? I don't think there is a scream from the barracks... Oyo321 17:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've heard in many things before. The first season of Wonder showzen is just one recent example that uses it liberaly. I've tried researching it before and come up with nothing. As far as I can tell it just one of those sound effects thats bundled with huge stock sound effect libraries you can buy. --Mitaphane talk 17:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Screaming sound 

message: We have to save them! also howcome the human/hydralysk was rated M I have the Prottos case which is rated T. Jamhaw 18:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: StarCraft Boxes

message: above maps are retarded and should be completely banned from starcraft, as it makes ppl unskilled
these maps are no better than playing with hackers, because hacked map editers are used to create these maps
only ppl who play this maps are noobs, maphackers, compstompers, etc
(if u disagree w/ my above statement, u are a hopeless noob too)
FFS, ONLY TRUE STARCRAFT MAPS ARE MAPS LIKE LT, LUNA, OR OTHER PROFESSIONAL GAMER MAPS LIKE RUSH HOUR III
i also suggest that fastest/zero clutter map section should b removed from main wikipedia article because it misleads people that these are legit maps (having this shit in main article is saying that maphack is a part of starcraft)
:That's your personal opinion, and I've met many who shared it.  I personally find money maps boring as hell, so I can understand your point.  But we have a policy on presenting a neutral point of view, and it is non-negotiable.  The money maps are very popular, and so they stay.  Kasreyn 05:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  fastest money/zero clutter maps 

message: While these players and vistors of a Blizzard event have had a good bit too much to drink (intentionally!?), they nevertheless express what I've been feeling is true about Blizzard's relationship with this game. They consider Starcraft to be a fun, in the sense of "marines and aliens fighting each other, loads of blood", but they do not honor the strategic and action-game finesse that continues to prevent this game from dying the natural video game death (despite serious cheating problems on battlenet). One example, in which this ignorance is showcased, is this recording of a Blizzard organized Starcraft competition: The commentator is glad to point out the special effects and motivate the crowd to some (self-)supportive cheers, but he barely understands the strategic situation during the matchups. The camera generously moves away from crucial ingame action to display the names of the gamers, the face of the commentator, the occasional crowd shot and cheap blend-over effects. The matchup-information frequently overlays the ingame map.
Now Blizzard is focusing all their efforts on WoW, because it's their big, fat money cow, and seem to have no problem with having millions of people waste their time in persuit of illusions of skill and relevance. I see Blizzard destroy user-organized projects in the spirit of love for War/Starcraft, even though they do not actually try to improve the Starcraft technology themselves anymore and having a less than marginal financial interest in continuing to sell copies of the game. I see them breaking compatibility with WoW interface extensions every patch, and compulsively removing any possible gain of advantage through smart play - like they cannot tolerate creativity by anybody but themselves. 
I do not doubt that Blizzard in general is capable of coding solid video games, but I want to love a few people within this big company for designing a game of exceptional beauty, people not morally responsible for the money-grinding and the legal bashing.
-212.99.194.222 23:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh.  I don't know if I agree with any of that.  You accuse Blizzard of greedy money-grubbing.  Yet they have obstinately refused to make Starcraft 2, alienating many fans.  I ask you, what could have been more of a sure bet than SC2??  I can understand waiting a little while to avoid saturating the market and competing against their own game.  But to wait nearly ten years, allowing the furor and excitement to fade away, essentially throwing away an eager, energized fanbase with itchy credit card fingers?  It's true, WoW has been a massive success, but they didn't know for sure it would be.  Whereas if SC2 had been released in 2001 or 2002 (ie., if it had gone into production about the time of D2's release), it would with utter certainty have been a blockbuster on opening day, and earned everyone at Blizzard enough money to retire to their own private islands.  If I were Vivendi then, I would have invested enough capital in Blizzard for them to be able to make SC2 and WoW simultaneously.  Of course, if I were Vivendi today, I would demand Blizzard president Michael Morhaime's head on a platter for throwing away so much money.  Kasreyn 01:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Kasreyn, they have a reputation to keep and they know it. They easily could have made SC2 by now and raked the money in, but the fact that they haven't tells us that they don't have any good ideas yet and that they're concerned about quality. Remember Warcraft Adventures? There's a game that could have brought in millions, but they cancelled it because they knew it wasn't any good. They'll return to the SC universe, when the time's right.--GeneralDuke 12:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Blizzard still provides plenty of support for Starcraft considering how old it is. Heck, they've recently set up an invitational tournament of as many top players as they can get (though probably not many pros) that also attempts to involve the community: . Not to mention that the most recent bug-fix patch was *this year*, and they've also promised (in a Korean interview) another patch to fix an outstanding bug/exploit. Sure, it would be nice to see Starcraft 2, but I don't think you can say that Blizzard unfairly ignores Starcraft; they give it far more attention than most 10 year old games get from their developers. ShardPhoenix 07:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blizzard not appreciating their own game