| Revision as of 00:47, 25 February 2013 editSNAAAAKE!! (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users96,243 edits →Proposed text← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:55, 25 February 2013 edit undoFurious Style (talk | contribs)122 edits →Proposed textNext edit → | ||
| Line 214: | Line 214: | ||
| :::I think there comes a point where common sense needs to take over so we can cooperate on a common goal. Everyone here knows that WL2 doesn't meet the technical/dictionary definition of isometric, just as everyone here understands that the term is sometimes used informally to describe games that have a similar camera angle. So we just need to figure out how to form a sentence that is compatible with both of these facts. It shouldn't be that hard. ] (]) 23:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC) | :::I think there comes a point where common sense needs to take over so we can cooperate on a common goal. Everyone here knows that WL2 doesn't meet the technical/dictionary definition of isometric, just as everyone here understands that the term is sometimes used informally to describe games that have a similar camera angle. So we just need to figure out how to form a sentence that is compatible with both of these facts. It shouldn't be that hard. ] (]) 23:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC) | ||
| ::::No, it's ''you'' who need to accept ''everything'' in ], ] and ], and to do it ''now''. (As of Space Quest, sources saying it was only a pseudo-3D game exist, such as and multiple paper sources from 1986 onward, you don't need to ''and'' you ''can't'' "update" ''anything'' with your original research.) --] (]) 00:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC) | ::::No, it's ''you'' who need to accept ''everything'' in ], ] and ], and to do it ''now''. (As of Space Quest, sources saying it was only a pseudo-3D game exist, such as and multiple paper sources from 1986 onward, you don't need to ''and'' you ''can't'' "update" ''anything'' with your original research.) --] (]) 00:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC) | ||
| ::::If it is very clear that the game does not actually have an isometric view, sources which claim the game does have an isometric view should be disregard as non-reliable for this particular fact. ] (]) 00:55, 25 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 00:55, 25 February 2013
 | A discussion regarding the game's camera view has been added to the talk page of the Wikiproject: Video Games. As a contributor to the project, please add your opinions to it here. Thank you. |
VentureBeat
Warning: The linked "VentureBeat" article is untrustworthy. It claims Wasteland 2 is going to be some kind of multiplayer online game. Melnorme1984 (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- Removed. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 17:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
"As envisioned, Wasteland 2 is a turn-based, top-down, role-playing, party game set in a Fallout-like post-apocalypse game." - only "untrustworthy" thing here are the people who would somehow read this as "some kind of multiplayer online game" (you two). --Niemti (talk) 10:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Fan Art
Is it okay to put couple of fan art to this article? --Infestor (talk) 20:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'd say no. While such fan art might be released under the appropriate copyright license, typically only official material is used for articles, unless the fan art itself is the subject. 217.120.178.21 (talk) 20:40, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Concept Art for the page?
Is it appropriate to use one of the publicly-released pieces of concept art for Wasteland 2 on this page? The "desktop wallpaper" section has two pictures with logos that would both potentially work for the article if such a thing is done. 174.31.154.235 (talk) 23:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
The forum issues
Discuss here before adding anything. --Niemti (talk) 09:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- "Mute and devoid of scripted personalities" is something that whackjob made up before he went crazy on the Wasteland 2 forums and got himself banned. Since I've been deprived of my ability to edit this article, I'm asking you to remove it. I also reworded the sentence about having "100% control" to something that sounded better, but he reverted that too. Melnorme1984 (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- It's also arguable whether Wasteland 2's system of companions will be "strongly different" from Fallout's. The truth is that deep and involved Bioware-style NPC companions were never Fallout's forte. In Fallout 1, they were an obvious last minute hackjob and barely had personalities! Melnorme1984 (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, Dogmeat is surely best remembered of them all while not talking at all. Anyway, what is the original source of this information? --Niemti (talk) 21:16, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- The officially released information about Wasteland 2's party system is already linked to from the article (references 6 and 7). Beyond that, there are a few tidbits that the design team have leaked to the forum's moderators - not something you can cite on a Misplaced Pages article. Melnorme1984 (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Hidden. Also get yourself a Misplaced Pages account, you'll be able to edit stuff yourself lol. --Niemti (talk) 21:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. I _do_ think it's worth noting that this game's system (creating a full party) will be different from that of most recent RPGs (with the notable exception of the Neverwinter Nights 2: Storm of Zehir expansion pack). But the way he phrased it, with the emphasis on how the system is "strongly different from Fallout" (Why mention Fallout specifically? This isn't a Fallout sequel, this is a Wasteland sequel!), is extremely passive aggressive. Melnorme1984 (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Isn't Wasteland 2 Fallout's spiritual successor? That would explain why he emphasized that. But I agree that it is probably better to keep speculation off of the wiki until it is official. The info will be hidden until then. Cheers. :) Kapitaenk (talk) 00:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- I found this: http://wasteland.inxile-entertainment.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=1100#p18458 It is an official press release from the game developers. Quote: "Wasteland is one of my favorite RPGs of all time, and when Brian asked if I wanted to work on the sequel, I jumped at the chance. While I've worked on Fallout 2 and Fallout: New Vegas, getting the chance to work on the spiritual successor to the Fallout franchise is a honor." I suppose we could add that Wasteland 2 is considered to be the spiritual successor of the original Fallout games. Kapitaenk (talk) 00:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- Except that makes absolutely no sense. Wasteland came out 9 years before Fallout. Fallout was the spiritual successor to Wasteland. Wasteland 2 is a sequel to Wasteland. Calling it the spiritual successor to Fallout is just plain silly. I can only assume that he meant the "spiritual predecessor to Fallout". Otherwise, we're in the weird situation of a game being the spiritual successor to a game that was a spiritual successor to the game the first is a sequel of. 99.141.131.13 (talk) 05:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- The games certainly seem to be related, and according to Fargo Wasteland 2 will have elements of both games (check references). "sequel to Wasteland" and "spiritual successor of Fallout" seems appropriate to me. What would you recommend? Kapitaenk (talk) 05:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- Except that makes absolutely no sense. Wasteland came out 9 years before Fallout. Fallout was the spiritual successor to Wasteland. Wasteland 2 is a sequel to Wasteland. Calling it the spiritual successor to Fallout is just plain silly. I can only assume that he meant the "spiritual predecessor to Fallout". Otherwise, we're in the weird situation of a game being the spiritual successor to a game that was a spiritual successor to the game the first is a sequel of. 99.141.131.13 (talk) 05:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- Avellone has clarified that he confused between "predecessor" and "successor": http://www.ripten.com/2012/03/30/chris-avellone-and-brian-fargo-bring-obsidian-and-inxile-together-again/ Melnorme1984 (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, I removed that reference and replaced it with another one where Fargo talks about how Fallout and Wasteland will influence Wasteland 2. Kapitaenk (talk) 08:34, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- The first paragraph of the article still says "spiritual successor of Fallout" - did you mean to remove that as well? (I'm agnostic on whether or not it should be removed, mind you) Melnorme1984 (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- Why would you want to remove it? I believe that the game will be strongly influenced by Fallout, and not just Wasteland, according to what I have read. I would call it a spiritual successor. Kapitaenk (talk) 10:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- Because successor implies a sequel in everything but name, something that has been a serious bone of contention in the Wasteland 2 development forums. And since this is a sequel to an existing property, there's no need to talk about it being a spiritual successor to anything, especially since the only official word on WL2 being a successor to Fallout was a misstatement. WL2 isn't going to be the long lost Van Buren that many Fallout fans want, it's going to be a sequel to Wasteland. Just look at the rage edits a few days ago by an enraged backer that expected it to be more Fallout than Wasteland. Keeping the description coldly lashed only to exact facts is probably for the best at this stage anyway. More can be added when the vision document is released. 99.141.131.13 (talk) 04:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- I say we change the opening sentence to this and let people draw their own conclusions:
- Wasteland 2 is an upcoming post-apocalyptic role-playing video game developed by inXile Entertainment for the Microsoft Windows, Mac OS X and Linux platforms. It will be the sequel to Wasteland (1988), which is the spiritual ancestor of the original Fallout games published by Interplay Entertainment.
- Melnorme1984 (talk) 10:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- I say we change the opening sentence to this and let people draw their own conclusions:
- It's probably okay, but I think it requires clarification. To most people nowadays, Fallout is a first person Bethesda game. It should be changed to "may be considered a spiritual successor of the original Interplay Fallout games". Melnorme1984 (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- Done. :) Kapitaenk (talk) 11:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- Because successor implies a sequel in everything but name, something that has been a serious bone of contention in the Wasteland 2 development forums. And since this is a sequel to an existing property, there's no need to talk about it being a spiritual successor to anything, especially since the only official word on WL2 being a successor to Fallout was a misstatement. WL2 isn't going to be the long lost Van Buren that many Fallout fans want, it's going to be a sequel to Wasteland. Just look at the rage edits a few days ago by an enraged backer that expected it to be more Fallout than Wasteland. Keeping the description coldly lashed only to exact facts is probably for the best at this stage anyway. More can be added when the vision document is released. 99.141.131.13 (talk) 04:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, I removed that reference and replaced it with another one where Fargo talks about how Fallout and Wasteland will influence Wasteland 2. Kapitaenk (talk) 08:34, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- Avellone has clarified that he confused between "predecessor" and "successor": http://www.ripten.com/2012/03/30/chris-avellone-and-brian-fargo-bring-obsidian-and-inxile-together-again/ Melnorme1984 (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Vision Document Released
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0BxMevjNSr2EjbDBpZ2ZMdmNnc28 84.229.222.242 (talk) 21:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I've seen your edit to the Gameplay section, Kapitaenk. It's still problematic - you're suggesting that something is lacking where it isn't. This article should tell people what the game DOES do, not speculate on what it doesn't do. This is how I would change what you wrote:
From this: "but they will be devoid of personal motivations and opinions, and as such will only be driven by the choices that the player makes. The party will also include non-player characters, each with their own (non-customizable) personalities, motivations, opinions and agendas."
to this: "The party will also include non-player characters, each with their own personalities, motivations, opinions and agendas."
Melnorme1984 (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- I know it is vaguely described in the vision document, but that is basically what it says, this is what the game will do. The player makes all decisions for his Rangers (like in many games with a main character), but not for the NPCs. I really do not understand why this is such a problem for you. I'll see if I can think up something better, so that we can end your dispute and unlock this article. Kapitaenk (talk) 21:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- You SHOULD describe what sort of game this will be. You can even point out that it differs from most modern RPGs (in that you generate 4 PCs instead of just one), and compare it to some older ones. But when you describe it as a negative ("but they will be devoid of", "non-customizable"), the impression is that you're pointing out flaws in the game, rather than merely describing it. Melnorme1984 (talk) 21:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- But you can't customize the NPCs as you can customize the PCs for example. Why do you consider this to be a flaw? What is wrong with differentiating the 2 types of characters in your party? "non-player characters, the latter similar in most respects to player characters except that the player will not have full control over them". Is that a flaw too? Kapitaenk (talk) 21:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- PCs are PCs, and NPCs are NPCs. Everybody knows that "player characters" in an RPG are fully customizable avatars of the player, usually with blank slate personalities (because they fully "belong" to the player), while "non-player characters" come with a preprogrammed personality and certain constraints (because they don't "belong" to the player). That's why the additional qualifications are redundant, and make it seem like the article is pointing out flaws where they don't exist, when all it really needs to do is say that there can be 4 player-generated PCs and 3 recruited NPCs with set personalities in the player's party. Melnorme1984 (talk) 21:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- But you can't customize the NPCs as you can customize the PCs for example. Why do you consider this to be a flaw? What is wrong with differentiating the 2 types of characters in your party? "non-player characters, the latter similar in most respects to player characters except that the player will not have full control over them". Is that a flaw too? Kapitaenk (talk) 21:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- You SHOULD describe what sort of game this will be. You can even point out that it differs from most modern RPGs (in that you generate 4 PCs instead of just one), and compare it to some older ones. But when you describe it as a negative ("but they will be devoid of", "non-customizable"), the impression is that you're pointing out flaws in the game, rather than merely describing it. Melnorme1984 (talk) 21:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Kapitaenk is an alt of fuzi0n, the banned Wasteland 2 forums poster who initiated this controversy. All of his edits are suspect. Please reexamine them.
Proof: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Changing_username/SUL/Rejected/3
Fuzi0nx → Fuzi0n Current username: Fuzi0nx (talk · Special:Contributions/Fuzi0nx · logs · block log)
Target username: Fuzi0n (talk · contribs · global contribs · logs · block log)
Datestamp: 06:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
For bureaucrat use: SUL report (old • new) | Email target username (1) (2)
Fuzi0nx (talk) 06:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I am de:User:Fuzi0n, de.wp is my home Wiki. I would like to take over this account: en:User:Fuzi0n in order to create a global account.
Clerk note: Moved from WP:CHU/U. ♠ 10:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Clerk note: Now that you have two requests up, I am assuming it is this one you want due to the fact that the account name Kapitaenk does not exist, and your 88 edits on dewiki under this name. ♠ 11:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Duplicate request removed. ♠ 02:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Not done, as you have apparently been renamed to Kapitaenk on dewiki. WJBscribe (talk) 18:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Melnorme1984 (talk) 10:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- Here's a transcript of Fuzi0n's final post on the forums, just to show you what we're dealing with here. These were copied by me before they were deleted by the moderators, but I can arrange for the originals to be recovered if you don't believe me.
- Yeah, yeah. Brian Fargo never mentioned that your temmates will be mute (unlike in Fallout). Kind of obvious, he wanted to maximize the amount of pledges.
- So that is it. Brian Fargo is a liar. “True Fallout fans will enjoy Wasteland 2” says Brian Fargo is also a lie.
- Well, I know it is hopeless, seeing that "brother none", Brian Fargo's errand boy, says that it is done and nothing can be done to change it. I can hardly wait for the fans to go apeshit though, seeing that they have been lied to.
- Thank god I still have shadowrun, etc. those guys aren't liars like Mr. Fargo.
- I am gonna sell my licenses and game box when I receive it and that is about it. Maybe I will pirate the game and check it out eventually, but I am certainly not going to support a liar like Brian Fargo (any more).
- It has been fun discussing the same shit over and over with the same 4 or 5 guys. I'll come back and write "fucking told you so" after the Fallout fans have gone ape shit. Have fun.
Melnorme1984 (talk) 11:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Alright, enough of this drama. Whoever he is, he can still write like anyone else as long as he adheres to Misplaced Pages principles (neutrality, reliable sources, etc). --Niemti (talk) 15:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- Sure, that's why I'm not asking for him to be barred from this article or anything like that. See the above sections for my arguments with him. Does it sound right to you to describe something in a Misplaced Pages article in terms of what it ISN'T? Do you write an article about a black-haired man describing him as "non-blonde"? Do you write an article about a FIFA game describing the players as "devoid of motivations and opinions"? This guy has toned down his rhetoric but he's still grinding the same axe - "This game should have been like Fallout and I must inform the world that it isn't". Contrast this article with the one for Icewind Dale. I'll bet plenty of people were disappointed that game wasn't more like Baldur's Gate in terms of party interaction, but the article does NOT go into that, nor should it. It describes the game as it is. Melnorme1984 (talk) 16:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
NPOV
"The Rangers will be highly customizable and the player's choice of statistics, skills and appearance will give the Rangers an individualized personality, but they will be devoid of personal motivations and opinions, and as such will only be driven by the choices that the player makes."
Italicized portion is non-NPOV and is just weasel words trying to skim under the radar. It's just a slightly less strong version of calling the PCs automations or "soulless stat sheets". 99.141.138.10 (talk) 04:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- It looks fine. The PCs do not have personal opinions, the NPCs do. According to the linked reference this is also correct. 70.178.95.46 (talk) 22:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- The player character doesn't have opinions? I agree with the first message, just horrible, please remove the sentence. 86.50.44.38 (talk) 09:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- I've fixed it, but it seems like one of the editors disagrees with me. Melnorme1984 (talk) 22:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
And what's wrong with Fallout connection thing? I've never even played the original Wasteland, I'm editing the Wasteland series and related (developers etc) articles only because I'm a Fallout fan and I appreciate it because without Wasteland there would be no Fallout. --Niemti (talk) 09:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- Nothing. Wasteland 2 definitely has a connection with Fallout, but I wouldn't describe it as being a spiritual successor of Fallout. We should find a better way to describe the relationship. Or like I wrote above, simply remark on the fact that the original Wasteland was a spiritual ancestor of Fallout and let people draw their own conclusions. Melnorme1984 (talk) 10:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- But that's how it was and it was deleted. --Niemti (talk) 11:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- No, KapitaenK's edit stated that Wasteland 2 (not the original) was a spiritual successor (not ancestor) of Fallout. That doesn't make much sense. Melnorme1984 (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- But that's how it was and it was deleted. --Niemti (talk) 11:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Lack of updates for the last 2 months
I just wanted to update the article, then realized why no one else did. Did Fargo grab the Kickstarter money and fled to Transnistria? What's going on? --Niemti (talk) 01:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- There's the news that the original Wasteland will come bundled with it? I guess? http://www.theverge.com/gaming/2012/7/10/3148460/wasteland-1-to-be-bundled-with-wasteland-2 Euchrid (talk) 01:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, it's probably time to update now. --Niemti (talk) 19:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Someone's keen on making unconstructive edits at Template:Wasteland series
Really, really obsessed with making a special category "Cancelled games" for just one cancelled game (and also to have the word "series" italicized like if it was a title). And is really combative when talking about it (and yes, he/she claims one thing, but does something else). The name's "MegaCyanide666". So, help me keep an eye on it, or maybe propose a different layout (other than the latest mine). --Niemti (talk) 20:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- It happened again. I agree that 'Cancelled games' doesn't merit its own section of the template. I might start a conversation on the template talk, see if we can't establish a consensus. Euchrid (talk) 00:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Game Camera View
There are problems with people not understanding what the camera view is in this game, and are using old references and inaccurate/out of context references.
WL2 uses the Unity engine, and the camera is currently a "3D" "Third-person perspective" "interactive camera system".
- Objects in the world are 3D not 2D or psuedo-3D.
- The camera is Perspective not Orthographic(parallel projection)
- The game allows the player to lock the 3D camera to a pseudo isometric view and a pseudo top-down view.
- --Sxerks (talk) 17:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- That's fine - just find a reliable source, specifically talking about Wasteland 2, that states what you are showing , otherwise its just original research. The one I added from 1UP states "Even in the absence of all this, what we have is an isometric RPG with turn-based combat". I don't claim to be an expert on the subject but I'm relying on the source which does use that term. Perhaps the source is wrong, perhaps not a source is needed. Caidh (talk) 18:34, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- All these gaming websites that are used as sources are on the same level as any blogger, they are writing opinion and shouldn't be used as sources. No source is needed, as it can be easily done by going through Video_game_graphics, yes, it's "original research", but it's not hard to do.--Sxerks (talk) 01:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- Confirmed for a troll. --Niemti (talk) 14:24, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- All these gaming websites that are used as sources are on the same level as any blogger, they are writing opinion and shouldn't be used as sources. No source is needed, as it can be easily done by going through Video_game_graphics, yes, it's "original research", but it's not hard to do.--Sxerks (talk) 01:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- That's fine - just find a reliable source, specifically talking about Wasteland 2, that states what you are showing , otherwise its just original research. The one I added from 1UP states "Even in the absence of all this, what we have is an isometric RPG with turn-based combat". I don't claim to be an expert on the subject but I'm relying on the source which does use that term. Perhaps the source is wrong, perhaps not a source is needed. Caidh (talk) 18:34, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- "Isometric" is not a term specific to gaming. It's term that derives from draughting, and there's an infinite number of resources that will define it in a way that excludes Wasteland 2. It is not necessary to provide a source that says "Wasteland 2 is not isometric" in order to disprove this. It is unambiguously wrong to say that this game is isometric.
- Isometric refers to the projection style, not the viewing angle. The distinction is that perspective projection has parallax. What that means is that objects that are furter away from the camera are smaller and objects that are closer are bigger. You can see this in Wasteland. As a character moves from the bottom of the screen toward the top will become smaller, and a tall building will be slightly larger on the roof than on the floor. This is parallax. An isometric game like, say Zaxxon or Landstalker does not have this distortion. Frogacuda (talk) 19:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- Here's a very helpful illustration from wikipedia's article on isometric graphics in games . Wasteland 2's view is like the first. An isometric game is like the second. Notice the perfectly vertical lines on the walls of the house in the second image because there is no parallax effect, whereas these lines are diagonal on the perspective image. Frogacuda (talk) 19:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- Isometric seems to have become a "buzz word" "catch all" term for any game with a camera angle like Fallout/Diablo. It's also not 3/4 view or optional top down, it a 3D interactive camera, to be more technical a "northern hemisphere" interactive camera since it can't go below the "equator" so to speak.--Sxerks (talk) 01:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, I see people call stuff like Diablo 3 isometric. But it isn't and that doesn't really excuse deliberately misusing it on wikipedia. I think a good compromise might be to say it uses a "semi-overhead view similar to isometric games."Frogacuda (talk) 12:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- Isometric seems to have become a "buzz word" "catch all" term for any game with a camera angle like Fallout/Diablo. It's also not 3/4 view or optional top down, it a 3D interactive camera, to be more technical a "northern hemisphere" interactive camera since it can't go below the "equator" so to speak.--Sxerks (talk) 01:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- Here's a very helpful illustration from wikipedia's article on isometric graphics in games . Wasteland 2's view is like the first. An isometric game is like the second. Notice the perfectly vertical lines on the walls of the house in the second image because there is no parallax effect, whereas these lines are diagonal on the perspective image. Frogacuda (talk) 19:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- http://www.destructoid.com/leaked-video-of-wasteland-2-shows-off-isometric-view-234481.phtml
- http://www.pcgamesn.com/wasteland-2-video-shows-isometric-perspective-camera-angle-diversity
- http://www.cinemablend.com/games/Wasteland-2-Screenshot-Shows-Graphical-Power-Unity-Budget-44859.html
etc etc.
Also: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/inxile/wasteland-2/posts/412225 ("There are three main camera elements that we should explain. The first is the camera zoom level. There has been a lot of talk since the start of the project about top down versus isometric. By using the mouse wheel, the player can smoothly zoom from a tight isometric camera back to a wider isometric shot. By further zooming out, the camera moves from the wide isometric to an old school top-down shot. If you are the type of player that doesn’t want the camera angle to change, just leave it alone. If you like to see things from different heights, or from the top down, you have the option of rolling the mouse wheel at any point, in or out of combat, and see the world from the perspective you want.")
Posted yesterday. Apparently, you two know better than the developers. Wow. --Niemti (talk) 14:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, apparently we do. So does the dictionary. "Drafting. designating a method of projection (isometric projection) in which a three-dimensional object is represented by a drawing (i·somet·ric draw·ing) having the horizontal edges of the object drawn usually at a 30° angle and all verticals projected perpendicularly from a horizontal base, all lines being drawn to scale. Compare orthographic projection."
- As you can see in this image the trees are all parallel in real life but appear at different angles on-screen because of parallax distortion, meaning this is clearly NOT isometric according to the dictionary definition. Common misconceptions do not justify their misuse here. Please fucking stop this.Frogacuda (talk) 19:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
And may this cautionary tale remind you to NEVER EVER TRY TO INSERT ANY OF YOUR STUPID ORIGINAL RESEARCH TO WIKIPEDIA. --Niemti (talk) 14:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- The dictionary and every authoritative writing on the subject is original research? You have no idea what you're talking about. Please stop. Or find one scholarly reference (NOT A GAMING BLOG) defining isometric projection that doesn't prove you wrong. This is not original research, it's just correct usage.Frogacuda (talk) 19:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- Didn't know Wastland 2 has anything in "the dictionary" that will contradict all the sources (including what the developers say about their own game). Now, will you kindly shut up already, get out of here and maybe make your own blog (speaking of blogs, and I mean real blogs and not your pejorative nickname for video game journalism), because apparently someone misinformed you how Misplaced Pages works. But now you know. --Niemti (talk) 20:00, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- Again, one credible source that shows any definition of isometric compatible with Wasteland 2. That's all I ask. It doesn't exist. I can find a million pieces of wrong information on the internet, but the dictionary is considered to be a MORE credible source than them, therefore it would be considered sufficient to nullify the sources you've given by wikipedia's own standard. I've written GA articles, I've been working as a gaming journalist for major sites for many years, and I know more about this than you. Do not continue this revert war. Use the talk pages and let the dispute be settled. Frogacuda (talk) 20:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- Didn't know Wastland 2 has anything in "the dictionary" that will contradict all the sources (including what the developers say about their own game). Now, will you kindly shut up already, get out of here and maybe make your own blog (speaking of blogs, and I mean real blogs and not your pejorative nickname for video game journalism), because apparently someone misinformed you how Misplaced Pages works. But now you know. --Niemti (talk) 20:00, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- A note to Frogacuda & Sxerks -- while I don't think you're incorrect in your analysis of the game, note that Misplaced Pages's policy of verifiability clearly dictates that articles should reflect sources over any editor's perception of truth or correctness. Are you able to provide reliable sources stating the use of "isometric" to describe's Wasteland 2 graphics is incorrect? That's the first requirement for any content dispute such as this one: provide reliable sources. Obviously Niemti's behaviour isn't as polite as some would wish, but I do not believe it diminishes the value of his arguments on this particular issue. I also feel compelled to urge you all to stop edit warring over whether the game's isometric or not while the discussion isn't resolved. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 21:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it."
- It seems rather absurd to require an article about Wasteland 2 being not isometric, but I can find many sources that refer to it as having "3D graphics", which is in conflict with isometric projection, a pseudo-3D view. Would that be considered sufficient to reconcile this debate?Frogacuda (talk) 21:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know if it will resolve anything, but please do bring forward the sources that state the game is not isometric. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 21:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- It seems rather absurd to require an article about Wasteland 2 being not isometric, but I can find many sources that refer to it as having "3D graphics", which is in conflict with isometric projection, a pseudo-3D view. Would that be considered sufficient to reconcile this debate?Frogacuda (talk) 21:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- Frogacuda - you are fighting a battle about this game where apparently you disagree with the usage of the term isometric in gaming in general. Games have used this term to refer to video games with this perspective for decades. Find a source that SPECIFICALLY refers to THIS game as non-isometric. Otherwise you are using original research. If you want to discuss the term's usage in gaming in general, discuss it in WP:Video Games or a similar, more comprehensive venue. You do not have consensus here to make this change.Caidh (talk) 21:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- This is not true at all. I agree with everything written on the article Isometric graphics in video games and pixel art, and everything written there specifically excludes Wasteland 2. There's even an illustration explaining the difference. You are simply not grasping the distinction between a game like Diablo and a game like Diablo 3. One uses isometric projection to create a 3D-like world with 2D graphics, and one is standard 3d graphics with a camera pointing down at an angle.Frogacuda (talk) 22:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oh - and also, if you don't agree with the usage of sites like those used in the citations here (which are gaming sites but more than just 'blogs') take it up on WP:Video Games as well. Misplaced Pages does not require scholarly review of its sources, but using such sources as you are using and making your own interpretations is WP:Synthesis which is specifically not allowed.
- When terms are in conflict, it should be sufficient to find a conflicting term. For example, I don't need to find an article that Elmo is not blue to contradict one that says he is. I can simply find an article that says he is red, since if he is red, he is not blue. People don't generally write about all the things that something isn't. Find me an article that says Skyrim isn't isometric, for example.
- Keep in mind the argument is not whether the game's camera adheres to the definition of isometric, but whether reliable sources state the game's camera to be isometric. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 22:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- So what I offer as a source is this video feature, narrated by one of the game's developer's and uploaded to their official channel, which clearly shows and discusses the game's 3D perspective and moveable camera. At 14:42 he even references that they had formerly planned to use an isometric camera, but that they are no longer. This, in conjunction with the dictionary definition (really EVERY definition) of isometric should be enough to reconcile this dispute. Frogacuda (talk) 21:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- When terms are in conflict, it should be sufficient to find a conflicting term. For example, I don't need to find an article that Elmo is not blue to contradict one that says he is. I can simply find an article that says he is red, since if he is red, he is not blue. People don't generally write about all the things that something isn't. Find me an article that says Skyrim isn't isometric, for example.
- "At 14:42 he even references that they had formerly planned to use an isometric camera, but that they are no longer." - are you deliberately attempting to misquote the source and earn your ban? Also: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/inxile/wasteland-2/posts/412225 (which I've linked already). --Niemti (talk) 22:05, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)In the provided source, a staff member says they "originally thought they would use a static isometric camera" and that the final product allows the player to control the camera. I am not being intentionally thick, but I do not see how that says the game cannot be described as "isometric" or would be better described in another way... :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 22:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- Well, as he explains, an isometric view is static. So by abandoning that, they were able to create a camera that can be rotated and moved up and down. That's the feature he's showing off. He's saying it was one thing, and now it's a different, contradictory thing. Make sense? Frogacuda (talk) 22:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- You made me laugh for real. () --Niemti (talk) 22:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- What frustrates me here, is that your dispute is not with whether or not Wasteland 2 is isometric, but with the definition of isometric but you won't accept ANY source on the subject. You claim is not that it uses a fixed angle or that all verticals are perpendicular to the ground plane, as described in definitions. Your claim is that isometric means something else, but you refuse to clarify what you think it means.
- You made me laugh for real. () --Niemti (talk) 22:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- Well, as he explains, an isometric view is static. So by abandoning that, they were able to create a camera that can be rotated and moved up and down. That's the feature he's showing off. He's saying it was one thing, and now it's a different, contradictory thing. Make sense? Frogacuda (talk) 22:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- This means there some seriously problematic ambiguity with the way the article is written. Wouldn't it be better, then to settle on a clearer, more descriptive way of describing the camera system? I'm sure there's a compromise to be had here, if indeed you have any interest in helping this article. Tell me what you think "isometric" means, and we'll find an alternate phraseology that works for everyone. Fair enough?Frogacuda (talk) 23:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- No. The only claim is that reliable sources describe the subject of the article as "isometric". That's really all that matters. Whether it's wrong or not, it has no bearing on what fact the actual should reflect. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 23:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- If an alternate wording captures the same meaning, it should be used in place of a disputed one. Consistency of the term's application across wikipedia is important, as well.Frogacuda (talk) 23:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- Furthermore, the sources are not reliable on the subject of isometry, they're reliable on the subject of games. What is being disputed here is really the meaning of the term "isometric" not the game's graphical style, and 1up.com is not an authority on that.Frogacuda (talk) 23:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- If an alternate wording captures the same meaning, it should be used in place of a disputed one. Consistency of the term's application across wikipedia is important, as well.Frogacuda (talk) 23:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- No. The only claim is that reliable sources describe the subject of the article as "isometric". That's really all that matters. Whether it's wrong or not, it has no bearing on what fact the actual should reflect. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 23:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- This means there some seriously problematic ambiguity with the way the article is written. Wouldn't it be better, then to settle on a clearer, more descriptive way of describing the camera system? I'm sure there's a compromise to be had here, if indeed you have any interest in helping this article. Tell me what you think "isometric" means, and we'll find an alternate phraseology that works for everyone. Fair enough?Frogacuda (talk) 23:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- Actually you didn't show "ANY source" at all (and to remind you: To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented., emphasis as in the original). I won't tell you what "I think", because my opinion is just irrevelant as yours. --Niemti (talk) 23:42, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
As of note to everyone else: Frogacuda just refused my official proposal for him to at last accept WP:OR, WP:V and WP:RS. And so I think it's a hopeless case. Simply can't be allowed to edit Misplaced Pages, unless on some later date, after he accepted the core content policies. --Niemti (talk) 23:42, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- Niemti, you do now own this article, you do not own wikipedia, you do not have the power to ban people, please stop acting as though you do, start acting civil and start working with other editors rather than against them, please. Furious Style (talk) 00:29, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Proposed text
- "(...) a camera system that can be rotated and moved from an isometric to a top-down view.
- "Details...Details...Details..." Wasteland 2 Kickstarter. inXile entertainment. 22 February 2013.
- This reflects the strongest source (the developer itself) with the most recent information and is appropriately referenced. Whether it is really isometric as per the definition of that term or not is of little consequences as what matters is that the fact is verifiable. Is this something we can all agree on? If not, please explain how you think this does correctly reflect the reliable reference. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 23:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- The back of the box for Space Quest I clearly states that it has "incredible 3D graphics", but anyone with eyeballs can see that it is completely 2D. Your source is valid if the claim is that it is "billed as isometric" or "marketed as isometric," but not sufficient to establish that it is isometric. Do you appreciate that distinction, or shall I update the Space Quest article?
- I think there comes a point where common sense needs to take over so we can cooperate on a common goal. Everyone here knows that WL2 doesn't meet the technical/dictionary definition of isometric, just as everyone here understands that the term is sometimes used informally to describe games that have a similar camera angle. So we just need to figure out how to form a sentence that is compatible with both of these facts. It shouldn't be that hard. Frogacuda (talk) 23:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- No, it's you who need to accept everything in WP:OR, WP:V and WP:RS, and to do it now. (As of Space Quest, sources saying it was only a pseudo-3D game exist, such as and multiple paper sources from 1986 onward, you don't need to and you can't "update" anything with your original research.) --Niemti (talk) 00:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- If it is very clear that the game does not actually have an isometric view, sources which claim the game does have an isometric view should be disregard as non-reliable for this particular fact. Furious Style (talk) 00:55, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- I think there comes a point where common sense needs to take over so we can cooperate on a common goal. Everyone here knows that WL2 doesn't meet the technical/dictionary definition of isometric, just as everyone here understands that the term is sometimes used informally to describe games that have a similar camera angle. So we just need to figure out how to form a sentence that is compatible with both of these facts. It shouldn't be that hard. Frogacuda (talk) 23:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC)