Almost every single mention of the game, the name is simply WWII, so this is certainly the common name right now. Even the official page always says WWII, except in one case on the pre-order page, which is presumable a slip up on their part. The front page contains the same text as the pre-order page, but says WWII instead. -- ferret ( talk) 22:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Have the zombies in the game been confirmed as National Socialists? Or is it the usual stuff, where they reanimate Wehrmacht soldiers and call them Nazis so that it's easier for the Player Character to shoot dead bodies, presumably thereby killing the dead once more.
This is an important distinction. 116.68.84.177 ( talk) 04:52, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
This is simply not true- Wolfenstein: A New Order depicts a Nazi concentration/death camp, to name only one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thespyguy ( talk • contribs) 07:57, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
I've rejigged the text and made the point that the IP user was making, about Schofield appeared to repeat the Clean Wehrmacht myth. Have linked to the article as it handles the subject much better than the multiplayer section of a video game ever can. - X201 ( talk) 13:26, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
They do realize "Clean Wermacht" is a myth? In my country a lot of civilian
killings in 41 was conducted by ordinary soldiers, not SS. They should
better say "we wanted to enable German side because its demanded and popular
and might bring in some right wing players". Panzer General and even Vulcan on
spectrum were able to do that.
178.220.189.1 ( talk) 09:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Player count? Game mode? Cross platform? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:AF69:C800:CDBB:4150:C77F:AF83 ( talk) 21:32, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
As of right now, the aggregate user score on Steam is 56/100. Should it be not mentioned? It's probably the most relevant review place.-- Adûnâi ( talk) 22:50, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Could someone add soundtracks to article? As here. - SunSoldiers ( talk) 14:06, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't own the game. Perhaps it's pretty obvious how historically accurate it is to those who played it. Perhaps there are no sources on it. Still, a game in such a historical setting deserves a short appraisal of it's historical accuracy imho. PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 10:41, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
@ PizzaMan: Here you go, Glen Schofield, co-founder and co-studio head at Sledgehammer said the following in an interview with Polgon: “The big distinction that Germans still make today is that between the German military and the Nazis,” says Schofield. “We made sure we made that distinction in the game, that the Germans were doing their duty ...” ( Link here). They used the Clean Wehrmacht myth as a design choice. - X201 ( talk) 21:43, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
1.2: Multiplayer. In this section of the article, the game's various divisions are described, and there is a lackluster description on the "Expeditionary" class that I'd like to rewrite and fix. Could anyone please change the "Shotguns used by players in this division have incendiary rounds that burn enemies to death" to "This division is especially helpful for flanking and devastating enemy frontlines in an aggressive approach; use of this class allows players to use incendiary shells in shotguns that trade off damage for a frightening burn effect that deals damage over time upon impact. Players can also carry both tactical and lethal explosives that, in this class, can be restored, allowing for a consistent output of damage in a match"? I wish to change this because I don't see many players use it correctly; editing this article won't make a great impact, but it'll surely bring it some justice and give readers more insight to the in-game feature. This "incendiary shotgun class" has a lot of negative connotations to it, and maybe that's why this description was so weak. Of all the divisions offered, I play this one the most, and what I described it as is very true. In short, the division's description does not feature enough insight to give players an idea of what the division is about and what it's used for. Adding this information can shed some light on the actual importance and utility of this class that many novice and even advanced players are unaware of. Please replace the current description for my suggestion in bolded text, which is polished, concise, and insightful--just like the descriptions for the other divisions. Thank you! DasOddie ( talk) 21:55, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The article content fails to establish that "1st, 2018" is correct and instead should be "1, 2018" 2605:E000:9143:7000:151:E360:10C:D026 ( talk) 11:03, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
@Wikibenboy94 You wrote: "As has been advised, if you want to contest changes to an article, please do so on its talk page and, if it's directed at a specific user, leave a message for the person from there"
I usually suggested changes on the users' talkpages, like here: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Veverve&diff=prev&oldid=972660298
It's the first time I'm told to do otherwise. I am doing this, however, and I hope I am doing this correctly.
You write, that as one review writes about "well-crafted personalities", and the other about "well characterized" protagonists, you suggest: "and write "Similarly, EGM praised the characters as "well characterized..."." Yes, similarly is good. So if we put EGM after GameSpot, do we put Game Informer after EGM, or maybe after IGN? This would reduce lack of connection between the reviews we sum up: GameSpot praises personalities, as well as visuals and sound design, similarly EGM praises protagonists, then what EGM writes about gameplay (lack of regenerating health, squad support). Then IGN praises campaign as having more human perspective, also praises characters, but they note conflicting tone of some missions in the campaign, as well as some frustrating missions, then Game Informer says the campaign was a drawback.
I think it would be more interesting than just reporting what each reviewer wrote. If you agree, I am meticulously doing it this way.
As far as "conflicting tone" is concerned, I feel it should be explained in the article, what the conflicting tone was. MichalZim ( talk) 09:28, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
@ Wikibenboy94:
@ Wikibenboy94:
Now we are getting somewhere. However, I feel the narrative would be better with IGN's Miranda Sanchez before Daniel Tack from Game Informer.
She says the campaign is more human, and the Zombies is the standout mode, he seems to continue the thought by saying that the campaign is the only drawback...
Still, Miranda Sanchez explains at length that some scenes conflict with serious tone of the game, the article suggests that she just doesn't like silliness of some scenes. MichalZim ( talk) 05:12, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
@ Wikibenboy94: Thanks, it's better now. MichalZim ( talk) 16:14, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Almost every single mention of the game, the name is simply WWII, so this is certainly the common name right now. Even the official page always says WWII, except in one case on the pre-order page, which is presumable a slip up on their part. The front page contains the same text as the pre-order page, but says WWII instead. -- ferret ( talk) 22:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Have the zombies in the game been confirmed as National Socialists? Or is it the usual stuff, where they reanimate Wehrmacht soldiers and call them Nazis so that it's easier for the Player Character to shoot dead bodies, presumably thereby killing the dead once more.
This is an important distinction. 116.68.84.177 ( talk) 04:52, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
This is simply not true- Wolfenstein: A New Order depicts a Nazi concentration/death camp, to name only one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thespyguy ( talk • contribs) 07:57, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
I've rejigged the text and made the point that the IP user was making, about Schofield appeared to repeat the Clean Wehrmacht myth. Have linked to the article as it handles the subject much better than the multiplayer section of a video game ever can. - X201 ( talk) 13:26, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
They do realize "Clean Wermacht" is a myth? In my country a lot of civilian
killings in 41 was conducted by ordinary soldiers, not SS. They should
better say "we wanted to enable German side because its demanded and popular
and might bring in some right wing players". Panzer General and even Vulcan on
spectrum were able to do that.
178.220.189.1 ( talk) 09:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Player count? Game mode? Cross platform? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:AF69:C800:CDBB:4150:C77F:AF83 ( talk) 21:32, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
As of right now, the aggregate user score on Steam is 56/100. Should it be not mentioned? It's probably the most relevant review place.-- Adûnâi ( talk) 22:50, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Could someone add soundtracks to article? As here. - SunSoldiers ( talk) 14:06, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't own the game. Perhaps it's pretty obvious how historically accurate it is to those who played it. Perhaps there are no sources on it. Still, a game in such a historical setting deserves a short appraisal of it's historical accuracy imho. PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 10:41, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
@ PizzaMan: Here you go, Glen Schofield, co-founder and co-studio head at Sledgehammer said the following in an interview with Polgon: “The big distinction that Germans still make today is that between the German military and the Nazis,” says Schofield. “We made sure we made that distinction in the game, that the Germans were doing their duty ...” ( Link here). They used the Clean Wehrmacht myth as a design choice. - X201 ( talk) 21:43, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
1.2: Multiplayer. In this section of the article, the game's various divisions are described, and there is a lackluster description on the "Expeditionary" class that I'd like to rewrite and fix. Could anyone please change the "Shotguns used by players in this division have incendiary rounds that burn enemies to death" to "This division is especially helpful for flanking and devastating enemy frontlines in an aggressive approach; use of this class allows players to use incendiary shells in shotguns that trade off damage for a frightening burn effect that deals damage over time upon impact. Players can also carry both tactical and lethal explosives that, in this class, can be restored, allowing for a consistent output of damage in a match"? I wish to change this because I don't see many players use it correctly; editing this article won't make a great impact, but it'll surely bring it some justice and give readers more insight to the in-game feature. This "incendiary shotgun class" has a lot of negative connotations to it, and maybe that's why this description was so weak. Of all the divisions offered, I play this one the most, and what I described it as is very true. In short, the division's description does not feature enough insight to give players an idea of what the division is about and what it's used for. Adding this information can shed some light on the actual importance and utility of this class that many novice and even advanced players are unaware of. Please replace the current description for my suggestion in bolded text, which is polished, concise, and insightful--just like the descriptions for the other divisions. Thank you! DasOddie ( talk) 21:55, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The article content fails to establish that "1st, 2018" is correct and instead should be "1, 2018" 2605:E000:9143:7000:151:E360:10C:D026 ( talk) 11:03, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
@Wikibenboy94 You wrote: "As has been advised, if you want to contest changes to an article, please do so on its talk page and, if it's directed at a specific user, leave a message for the person from there"
I usually suggested changes on the users' talkpages, like here: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Veverve&diff=prev&oldid=972660298
It's the first time I'm told to do otherwise. I am doing this, however, and I hope I am doing this correctly.
You write, that as one review writes about "well-crafted personalities", and the other about "well characterized" protagonists, you suggest: "and write "Similarly, EGM praised the characters as "well characterized..."." Yes, similarly is good. So if we put EGM after GameSpot, do we put Game Informer after EGM, or maybe after IGN? This would reduce lack of connection between the reviews we sum up: GameSpot praises personalities, as well as visuals and sound design, similarly EGM praises protagonists, then what EGM writes about gameplay (lack of regenerating health, squad support). Then IGN praises campaign as having more human perspective, also praises characters, but they note conflicting tone of some missions in the campaign, as well as some frustrating missions, then Game Informer says the campaign was a drawback.
I think it would be more interesting than just reporting what each reviewer wrote. If you agree, I am meticulously doing it this way.
As far as "conflicting tone" is concerned, I feel it should be explained in the article, what the conflicting tone was. MichalZim ( talk) 09:28, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
@ Wikibenboy94:
@ Wikibenboy94:
Now we are getting somewhere. However, I feel the narrative would be better with IGN's Miranda Sanchez before Daniel Tack from Game Informer.
She says the campaign is more human, and the Zombies is the standout mode, he seems to continue the thought by saying that the campaign is the only drawback...
Still, Miranda Sanchez explains at length that some scenes conflict with serious tone of the game, the article suggests that she just doesn't like silliness of some scenes. MichalZim ( talk) 05:12, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
@ Wikibenboy94: Thanks, it's better now. MichalZim ( talk) 16:14, 3 September 2022 (UTC)