Talk:StarCraft: Ghost

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleStarCraft: Ghost is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 20, 2012.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 26, 2008Good article nomineeListed
September 22, 2008Good topic candidatePromoted
October 1, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
October 16, 2008Featured article candidatePromoted
February 23, 2011Good topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Starcraft 2 Implications[edit]

Ghost's main character shows up in Starcraft 2, but is very much left hanging. While I realize speculation about what that means isn't necessarily correct to put here, someone who is curious about this topic would be better informed to know it. I am modifying a line for that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.173.216.159 (talk) 01:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vaporware[edit]

The article acts like as if the game has been released or is about to be relased. This could be confusing to readers. I think it should instead say "Blizzard planned to do this" or "Ghost's gameplay would have differed in x" instead of "Ghost's gameplay is different." At least it seems this way. I can defend the tone of DNF in the fact that 3DR has yet to slam the door on the project, whereas Blizzard seems to have done just that. hbdragon88 (talk) 19:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, point taken, although it still can't be said that the door's been slammed tight, they still don't cancel it officially. -- Sabre (talk) 22:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks okay to me, you've done a great job cleaning it up. Too bad that Ghost can't beat DNF in terms have placing #1 for three years in a row. Or, in antoher sense, Blizzard was merciful and termianted the project in a timely manner, in three years opposed to eleven years (coming up this April 27!). hbdragon88 (talk) 22:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite[edit]

I've just uploaded a full rewrite for the article. The crufty unit lists have been entirely thrown out, replaced with sections covering gameplay. The development section's been redone, and referenced as best I can for the moment, although a couple of bits still need sourcing - I've highlighted them with {{fact}} tags. A lot of the dates in the previous version contradicted the sources I was reading when making this (ie, Nihilistic quit in 2004, not 2002), I hope I've managed to get the dates accurate. The images have also been redone so they display things that are of potential use to readers, as opposed to before. The overall tense (except the story bits) is in the past for the moment, obviously should Ghost ever become viable again this would need to be updated to the present and future tenses accordingly as soon as possible. -- Sabre (talk) 16:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been unable to verify that the WoW expansion contained a trailer to Ghost, or that Slashdot reported that 80% of the game engine was complete when Nihilistic left the project. Therefore, they've been removed. -- Sabre (talk) 18:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VG/A[edit]

Couple of things I picked up while reading through this

  • Lead - "However, the game's development " - maybe break up into two sentences
  • Multiplayer - the tense of this section seems to switch around. It also feels jargon-heavy. Although the jargon is wikilinked, it might be an idea to break it down a little.
    • I can't seem to do much about the jargon, its explained as best I can, and I can't cut it down by much. -- Sabre (talk) 10:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Development - I'd be interested to hear more of the initial media reaction to the concept, such as the hype that built up around the announcement and the special website that they did. You have the media response to the project being put on indefinite hold, so it'd be good to be able to chart the media attitude through development.
    • I've added a couple of points, covering the initial reaction to the game, and later anticipation for the game from the media. -- Sabre (talk) 15:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs - for some reason, Ref #29 doesn't link through properly. Additionally, it links thorugh to a fansite. I know it's taken from a Bliizcon, but is the same information available from another source that could be argued as more reliable?

Other than that, a great article. Regrading to B class. Gazimoff WriteRead 18:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd personally make a case that SC Legacy is, at least in this regard, a reliable source. WP:Verifiability defines a reliable source as a third-party source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Now, if we were dealing with it being used to reference key gameplay elements, or review things, it would fall under WP:SPS. However, its newsposts are always sourced and verifiable themselves, giving it a reputation for fact-checking, at least within the StarCraft community. Its also completely independent of Blizzard, and generally gives far more coverage of events like this than most "established" sources like IGN. I'd say that based on this, its usage within the scope of news for the game is reliable. I don't know why the url isn't redirecting properly, I'll have a look at the coding I've used. I'll also take a lookie at the other bits mentioned. Thanks for the review. -- Sabre (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with your thoughts and understand your angle. It's just that if you were to try to push for GA or FA, it'd be one of the things that might be looked at further. It's why I mentioned it now - it's probably worth looking at to see if it can be backed up now instead of mid-GAN. Otherwise, it's great work for an unreleased game. Gazimoff WriteRead 20:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GAN[edit]

Haven't had time to give the article a good run-down, I will do that later, but some preliminary comments:

  • Officially, it's not cancelled. The tone of the gameplay suggests it has been. Also, the "could" and "would have" is highly annoying to read after a while. Perhaps saying "such and such was planned" and similar to reduce the redundancy?
    • I've had a go at trying to introduce some variety to wording, is that better? -- Sabre (talk)
  • Minor grammar, I'll pick them out as I see them:
    • "after the cease in development in 2006." should be cessation, I think.
    • "Beyond the backstory for the game's central character very little has been revealed as to the story of the game", may want a comma, may not. Depends
  • Any comments from game publications about Ghost's status, besides 'cancelled'?
    • I've added a quick note on IGN's reaction, I'm afraid that's as good as it gets, most of the rest stopped coverage with the note that it was cancelled and why, rather than their views on it. -- Sabre (talk) 14:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow, --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was advised by hbdragon88 to put the article in the past tense (see the first thread on this page). I can change it back if you want, but its unclear how much of these features will remain should Ghost ever re-emerge. I'll try to deal with the wording and any other issues you come across when I get home later. -- Sabre (talk) 09:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better, I can understand Hbd's comments. One thing, I just noticed "vapourware" in the lead, have you been writing the entire thing in British english or am I just blind? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, its been written entirely in British English. I am, after all, English, so its far easier for me to write in British English. The article should probably be in American English, but I don't know all the ins-and-outs of the changes from British English. -- Sabre (talk) 17:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guessed that from your username... :P Ok, it looks good to me, I'll pass it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! -- Sabre (talk) 18:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battle.net[edit]

Back before StarCraft: Ghost was indefinitely postponed it was planned to be on Battle.net (GameCube & PS2 versions only, the Xbox version wouldn't according to Blizzard since Xbox doesn't allow such things).--4.244.42.10 (talk) 01:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

Shacknews is reliable per WP:VG/RS. I replaced the SCLegacy.com with a GameSpot.com link. Gary King (talk) 02:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great; looks good. Good luck bringing this to FAC. :-) –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note for future: SC Legacy can be seen to be a reliable source within the closed views of the StarCraft series for stuff like conventions and low-key story or gameplay-related news for a couple of reasons: it generally sources its information, allowing readers to double-check should they wish, plus it has shown editorial oversight in the past: ie, it will change its information if that is proven to be inaccurate. Blizzard has also been in direct contact with them, happily doing the odd interview and exclusive news release. That pretty much covers the idea that a reliable source "has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", at least within the limited scope I mentioned above. However, in this case, the GameSpot published source is definitely preferable. -- Sabre (talk) 10:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the words of User:Ealdgyth, "To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information." Gary King (talk) 15:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I could probably do that, but since the source in question has been replaced with a superior one anyway, I shan't worry about it at present. -- Sabre (talk) 15:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unverified Speculation[edit]

I have removed a revision which stated that StarCraft: Ghost would be released between 2013 and 2015. I urge others not to post speculation like this without reliable sources. Even then, do not state it as fact. Yally (talk) 02:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That speculation stuff was added by an IP 45 minutes before you removed it. It wasn't there by intent of the major contributors to the article. Thanks for getting rid of it fairly promptly though. -- Sabre (talk) 16:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Postponed[edit]

I just an email about StarCraft: Ghost and they said it's still postponed until the utilize the additional power of today's consoles so can we add that in. --Victory93 (talk) 04:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad email isn't citeable here unless it's published by a reliable secondary source. You could try getting an official response on Battle.net's Starcraft forums. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 07:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cancellation[edit]

I read that Blizzard was sued because their marines in Ghost looked too much like the ones in Warhammer, and then they canceled the game. They announced it on the description of their StarCraft Ghost HQ video description. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.47.186.150 (talk) 04:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its not true. That would have been far more widely reported if it was, a youtube video and its comments aren't exactly the most reliable of sources. -- Sabre (talk) 12:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check it again, it isn't a comment, it's the description. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.47.186.150 (talk) 01:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The description is user-submitted, its not a reliable source. The linked Blizzard press release makes no mention of Ghost. -- Sabre (talk) 01:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New information such as this one this year confirms that Blizzard does not wish to continue Ghost because of World of Warcraft's success. This information should be added. 134.71.92.51 (talk) 01:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added Morhaime's comments regarding WoW and SCII taking up Blizzard's resources; since Strategy Informer got the info from Kokatu, that's the source I've used. -- Sabre (talk) 10:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reference over the internet that the game has been fully cancelled, only that it is in progress. Please post a proper source since links are broken. --Psychark (talk) 14:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Polygon reference in the development section is working, with a direct quote from Morhaime... -- ferret (talk) 15:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SC2 Involvement[edit]

Should we mention the Nova character's involvement in the Wings of Liberty campaign of StarCraft 2? --85.81.86.44 (talk) 19:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Novel[edit]

It seems to me that the novel should be covered in this article, instead of linking back to the main StarCraft article. -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 03:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on StarCraft: Ghost. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:23, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on StarCraft: Ghost. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:04, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on StarCraft: Ghost. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:01, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on StarCraft: Ghost. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:46, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FAR[edit]

I think this article is going to need an FAR soon. A ton of information in the 2016 Polygon article hasn't been implemented yet, as well as the information from the 2020 leak. JOEBRO64 00:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:StarCraft:_Ghost&oldid=1217234318"