Talk:Advance Wars: Days of Ruin

; Archives
	Genre Debate;

Video games B‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game

B

This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale.

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Info

Can anyone get a copy of it when it comes out, as far as I see, it's looking EU only.YdoUask 23:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know exactly what you mean by asking this, but I don't think that the game will be released exclusively in European territories. None of the other Advance Wars games have, and I don't see any reason why they would start now...then again, the game has only been shown in France and has only been listed for European release so far. Still, the game has only made two appearances and one of them was merely announcing its existence. So I think it will release in multiple territories.

Anyway, I don't think this makes too much of a difference for the article at this point.

Erik 02:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What they mean is that the release date for Australia is unconfirmed, and that the article should be changed to reflect that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.51.83 (talk) 06:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo Wars Template

This is not completely related to the article, but has anyone noticed the change made to the game link template at the bottom of Nintendo Wars game articles? This new one seems much less refined than the previous one, and is even missing some games which were included in the last one. If possible, can anyone revert this to the old template? Comandante42 19:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken care of the problem and restored the original template. In case you want to know, the user who made the changes was Shiggy. Hopefully this won't happen again. 72.49.101.186 20:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previous Unit Names

Shouldn't the unit's names include what they previously were, so that, for example, people know that the Bazooka used to be the Mech? Perhaps another category for renamed units? Or something like "Bazooka (Previously known as Mech)" or "Mech (Called Bazooka in AW:DoR)"? Glade 13:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean. When I updated and reorganized the returning unit list a while back, I added such details. Apparently they aren't necessary to this article, because someone keeps removing them. I'd leave the issue alone for now, and maybe bring it up again when this article is more fleshed-out and the rename-details might be more important.

72.49.101.186 19:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except it is necessary, especially to players. If someone who played AW:DS comes in and looks that the list of "Returning Units", they're not going to know that Bazooka means Mech and Mech Gun means Artillery. Glade 19:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and added the old names. I noticed that they were there before, and I also don't know why they were removed. Hopefully they will stay this time. If anyone can organize the way I displayed the info better, feel free to; I couldn't think of a better format but I'm sure there is. For anyone else editing this article, try to leave in the info if you can't improve it. Comandante42 20:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Tank/ Megatank

Comandante42, while I agree with most of your recent edits to the page, I have changed your edit to the Anti-Tank info. The Anti-Tank is indeed a Howitzer-like gun unit with an indirect attack that obviously counters tank units. The Megatank seen in the screenshot going up against a Motorbike is NOT the new Anti-Tank unit, though other screens seemed to support this until recent facts were made known to me. The Anti-Tank is seen at the end of the AW: DoR Trailer video in the Factory unit production list that pops up. It is the third unit from the top of the right column, and costs 11000 G. As for the Megatank, all we have is that one screen of it, and the mini-version seen in the Infantry unit info part of another screen. I guess the details about the Megatank have yet to be revealed, but it is clear that they are two separate units; also the Megatank does not appear in the video in the list with the Anti-Tank, likely because it is unavailable at that point in the Campaign.

72.49.101.186 05:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. Oddly enough, I was just about to remove my info on the Anti-Tank, but not because I had learned that I got it wrong. I just thought that it was too hard to see the difference in pixels in the screen shots, and my info may need an explanation. Anyway, I guess we will have to wait and see how the Megatank turns out. I'll try and find some more details about both units, but again, thanks for fixing my mistake. One last thing: I have noticed a tendency for many people to confuse the Flare, Anti-Tank, and Megatank sprites with each other due to the bad image and video quality. Apparently, the Flare is closer to an Artillery unit in design, and if you are right, then the one sprite thought to be the Flare is actually the Anti-Tank. Looks like the Megatank is the only true direct-attacker. Comandante42 05:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New COs

This is a little soon to broach the subject, but should the new Days of Ruin COs be included in the current Advance Wars CO List at all? As these COs are present in a new plotline, it would be confusing for them to be in the original article, unless the COs were reorganized by plotline. Even this, I fear, may lead to some misunderstandings. I am in favor of a separate article being created at a time when enough info has been made available so that it is clearly understood that one set of COs is unrelated to the other. Since the game release is currently months away, I do not expect a good response at least until early Jan. or the game's release, when more info may have come to light that will be vital in making the final decision.

Comandante42 20:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think a new page is a good idea, since the other page is crowded already. Perhaps "List of Advance Wars: Days of Ruin COs" or some such. Glade 22:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and made the article and based it as much as possible on the original one. Hopefully more details can be added soon. Comandante42 (talk) 04:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VG assessment

This is definitely beyond stub-level, so well done on getting it thus far! Here are some ideas to improve it further:

Sourcing on the whole is good, though you may want to convert the citations not already in the {{cite web}} template to use them.
You should also have a look at how I've re-done the references - this method means that the ref list isn't clogged up with the same reference over and over again.
Furthermore, per WP:MOS in-line citation thingies should go after punctuation and not before. I also fixed this.
The Gameplay section is written with a very good level of detail (not too much, not too little), but I would suggest trying to merge as many of the one- and two-sentence paragraphs, as it makes the prose seem quite choppy to read. The length of these paragraphs (just one sentence in the whole Multiplayer section!) means that the subsections aren't really necessary as yet.
The Plot section will need to be expanded to give a full overview of the plot once you've got the citations required.
Currently, this game only has sections dealing with the actual games. Usually video game articles have a section about the development of the game (e.g. when it was announced, which game shows it was on display at), and a Reception section (what reviews of the game said). Given the fact that the game hasn't been finished/released yet, I can understand why the Reception section doesn't exist yet.
Once the game's released, get some screenshots. A fair use rationale, such as that used on the game's logo, would be necessary.
The lead section needs to be expanded per WP:LS to summarise the entire article, but as the game isn't released yet a "complete" lead won't be possible.

Otherwise, great work. If you have any questions don't hesitate to ask. Una Laguna^Talk 07:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Name?

Advance Wars: Dark Conflict goes on sale in the United States on January 21. The Australian release date has yet to be confirmed. This is the quote from: http://www.gameplayer.com.au/Home/PREVIEWS/PREVIEWGAME/tabid/1484/Default.aspx?CID=23b1c420-41b6-458a-921c-88fe2c9a6d99&v7Pager=1

If this is a LOCALISED to Australia only name why would they refer to the US release by its Aussie name? Anyway, worth keeping an I on IMO. KsprayDad (talk) 04:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The game is referred to by the Australian name because the site is Australian. Look at it this way: in the US, we don't refer to the Japanese name of a game when we talk about it, but almost always by its US name. Same thing in Australia. Dark Conflict is the Australian name, so it wouldn't make sense to refer to the game as Days of Ruin on an Australian website. This would only confuse Australian gamers, much like us American gamers are now perplexed by this kind of information cross-contamination. I'm sure all that has happened is that an American site saw an Australian one and rashly posted the new info as a name change without considering that the name could only be the Australian localized version. We'll know for sure in a week or so, if the big American gaming sites like IGN bring it up or not. Comandante42 (talk) 05:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Official Nintendo Power (American) has referred to it as Advance Wars: Days of Ruin YdoUask (talk) 01:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naming puns?

I'm sure Rubinelle is a pun on ruby and Lazuria on lapiz lazuli...should this be put in? 72.80.37.238 (talk) 03:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It definitely is, and I think it should be put in eventually. However, I think we should wait until the names for the green and yellow nations are officially revealed first. 130.18.120.144 (talk) 17:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Green faction is to remain absent in AW:DoR-- Penubag 18:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, there will be only four nations in AW: DoR; Red (Rubinelle), Blue (Lazuria), Yellow, and Black. I know that some gaming site, either 1up.com or Gamespot, previously named the Red and Blue nations in their original preview of the game, long before Nintendo Power mentioned it. I came to the same conclusion about the origins of the names, and I've speculated on other game sites about the names of the remaining two unidentified nations. Unfortunately, the origins of the names in this game have no bearing whatsoever in the article. Such trivial info isn't allowed in articles like this unless it directly factors into an aspect of gameplay, which it does not; since the meaning of the names may be completely different in another localized version of the game, it would serve no purpose to add the info. You can post the info on this discussion page, but it can't be placed into the article. Comandante42 (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Thank you. AkvoD3 (talk) 17:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Old COs

This (official) page seems to say that the previous games' COs have been specifically killed off, rather than simply superceded by a new cast. Is it worth slightly altering the wording of the article in light of this? U-Mos (talk) 15:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing should be changed. This appears to be a misunderstanding, as it was clearly stated by developers early on that Days of Ruin would take place in a different storyline than the old one. That means that in the world of DoR, the old COs and nations never existed, and therefore could not have been killed as seemingly implied by your site. The fates of the old COs are not a part of DoR at all. Also, since your site is for the European localized version (Dark Conflict), some details will differ, but I doubt the plot was changed in such a way to make the game a direct sequel to AW: DS. Localization usually doesn't go that far, so again, what you saw is probably just a misunderstanding. Comandante42 (talk) 20:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But as this is an official page, direct from the publisher which can be referanced and used as a primery source, shouldn't this information be used until otherwise disproved? Also, while we're at it, can a registered user add a redirect for Dark Conflict? - As no other page is using it, I think it's OK if we claim it. 81.137.159.61 (talk) 11:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The info really shouldn't be added since it is contradicted by previously released info, which affirms that the plots of the old games and the new one have nothing to do with each other. Wait until the North American site is up, and if that does not clear it up, then we'll just have to wait for the game; as it is, do not add info from the European site just yet. Comandante42 (talk) 21:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find a source/referance stating that it's nothing to do with the previous games attached to the article. I'll go along with what you said if one is added. 81.149.182.210 (talk) 02:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why the American site should be considered more reliable than the European one. And all I remember reading is that the COs would all be new, not that there would be no connection whatsoever. Whatever the case, it's a very minor point anyway. U-Mos (talk) 13:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An interview video on the Gamespot page, as well as various preview articles from other sites dated around October, clearly make the point across that the new game is a separte entity in terms of plot. Not only does this explain the absence of the old COs, but it also explains other changes such as scaled back CO powers and that there are only new countries and none of the old ones. As for the European site's credibility, that is only due to localization. As the new game has not been released yet, there is no way to compare the European and American versions for such differences. Comandante42 (talk) 01:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In general, European releases are identical to American releases, just with extra languages added on and, in this case, a different name on the title screen. ie plots are identical in the English language at least U-Mos (talk) 14:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the links below prove the European site is inaccurate, but if they don't satisfy you, then we will have to wait until the game is released to resolve this issue. Besides, the plot section cannot be finished until the game's release, so I don't see why we should be in a hurry to add more to it anyway, especially when a new source of info has details that contrast sharply with other sources.

Comandante42 (talk) 19:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Advance Wars 4 Cover.jpg

Image:Advance Wars 4 Cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

fixed-- penubag 00:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speculation/ original research

I have seen the pictures that have been cited in recent changes pertaining to the plot, and know that their credibility has been in doubt since their release some weeks earlier. They appear to be either fakes or as yet improperly translated/localized. Besides this, though, the info added to the article differed greatly from the the content of the pictures themselves, and is thus assumptive speculation. Since the game is only a few weeks away from release, we can wait to see if the speculation is true; we just can't add it in, because it can't be concretely proven or disproven as of yet. Comandante42 (talk) 20:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how it could be fake or why translation would even matter. The images here, here, and here are all official and all show the owl for the Black army. if you look closer on the scientist's coat you can see the owl emblem with the words Intelligent Research Sy... imprinted on them. The same could be worked out with the Yellow Dragon Ruber Armed Forced along with Grayfield and the other commander with the same emblem, in addition to both their appearences as the yellow army in screenshots. The red army also has a wolf for an icon, coinciding with the name Brenner's Wolves and the icon at the beginning of turns seen in the videos. I'm sorry but I couldn't tell if this is original research or not, so I apologize if it is and we could wait for the game's release. Tsuruya-San (talk) 20:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed my previous responses here, as they bordered on turning this topic into a forum. Summarized, I accept that your view of the plot may be correct in the end, as it seems viable when thought out in context with the confirmed facts. Unfortunately, your sources aren't enough by themselves to prove the theory, and thus the info added to the article falls under original research. Waiting for the game to be released is definitely the best course of action here. Comandante42 (talk) 22:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia

That 10 digit code to open the bunker is 9693872914 86.3.204.7 (talk) 22:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plot cut off.

The plot section as it currently stands makes it seem as if the plot ends with Brenner's death, something which I'm sure is not the case.

Having said that, I'm not sure exactly what happens next so I don't know what should be used for a placeholder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.19.18.166 (talk) 22:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The plot is unfinished. Currently, it summarizes the major events up to mission 16. I'm updating the section as I play the game, so the plot should be complete in a few days. Keep in mind the game was released only a few days ago, so updates like this do take some time to fully incorporate into the article. I'll add something to the plot section to clarify. Comandante42 (talk) 22:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention here earlier that the plot summary now covers the entire campaign. Only vital details have been left in to conform to WP guidelines. Comandante Talk 22:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnocentric Bias?

In English Speaking Europe, all the CO's and Countries go by different names to the american ones. Could this be highlighted in a "Version differences" subsection at all? Please note this isn't merely a translation issue, given that I'm specifically refering to ENGLISH LANGUAGE PAL region carts.

62.231.137.138 (talk) 09:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Varying names are listed in the 'list of COs' article. I don't know if it's important enough to warrant a subsection in this article, and I'm not being dismissive, I'm in the PAL region. God knows why they just don't keep the names the same. Perhaps a very clever editor will come up with a solution, and please, no-one suggest putting the PAL name in brackets after the NA one, that would be terrible. Geoff B (talk) 09:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, mentioning the different names once would be OK, I think. It's worthwhile mentioning the differences, which is why I created the "regional differences" section - even the level names are different (for example, the Great Owl is known as something else entirely). Tim (Xevious) (talk) 06:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

I would much rather see this as being merged and then redirected rather than a simple redirect unfortunately I haven't played the game. If there is no objections or no one actually merges in the info in an adequate amount of time (say a month?) then I am OK with the redirect. --Sin Harvest (talk) 02:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to be merged. The necessary information is already covered within the plot section, and people can expand upon that in the CO section if they would like (though that's more about the gameplay side). TTN (talk) 02:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. The article is there to talk about the game. COs in their own section(article) is fine.DeathMark (talk) 06:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect alone is fine. Only a short list of the COs would be necessary for the main game article, like the one on Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, but with fewer details (name and faction affiliation only, perhaps). Comandante42 (talk) 21:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that List of Advance Wars: Days of Ruin COs should be merged with List of Advance Wars COs and Advance Wars: Days of Ruin COs should only merely be mentioned in the DoR ariticle. -- penubag 02:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest otherwise; this article on DoR COs can be left alone so it does not clog the actual DoR page. Per AfD transwiki and delete decision for List of Advance Wars COs, I already foresee a tremendous amount of clutter that will end up in the Advance Wars page, so there is no need for more. (I personally feel that keeping the pages separate can be far more efficient than combining and cluttering everything together - see List of Front Mission characters and Front Mission) Pasonia (talk) 17:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of tactics/strategy discussion

Should this not be archived at the least? Should we not keep the one thread which was home to proper debate? Tim (Xevious) (talk) 06:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, an archive would be good, I'll set one up unless someone opposes-- penubag (talk) 07:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a good idea, when V-Dash wasn't involved there was some good discussion. Geoff B (talk) 07:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

V-Dash may still come back as another sock - autoblocks only last 24 hours, and his IP is not directly blocked. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 08:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's kinda silly when the legacy of V-Dash stops all of us having a discussion on strategy/tactics issue again. It's like succumbing to his malevolent cause. Let's have the discussion again and if he comes back, we can always ignore him later.Stevefis (talk) 01:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mud. Pretty good idea that is. Bring a point up I need to. Plot seems a bit limited.KipVeryMadFan (talk) 19:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. SharkD (talk) 21:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While this is off-topic, the plot was longer at one point but had to be reduced to meet WP guidelines. As for the strategy/tactics discussion, I would prefer that it be left in the past, but I see nothing wrong with the resumption of honest, constructive debate on the issue (as long as we get it done before another V-Dash shows up, whenever that may be). Comandante Talk 20:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]