Talk:Wolfenstein: The New Order

Really the 9th game?

First of all, the first two games listed on the series wikipedia page were not FPS games at all, nor did id software have anything to do with them whatsoever. The core series began with Wolfenstein 3D. It was made as "Wolfenstein" because ID discovered that there was no copyright for those other 2 games, thus giving them the freedom to use the Wolfenstein name et al.

Secondly, you're also including the iOS/mobile "RPG" game? Seriously? No mobile spinoff of a core game series has ever been considered cannon.

No, Wolfenstein: The New Order will be the 6th game, not the 9th. 71.168.201.136 (talk) 17:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)Kragg

Release date the 19th for PC

I can't verify the console system releases, but I can say the current release is wrong for the PC version. PC release was May 19, 2014. I'm not very good with wiki syntax, so I'm going to leave this here for now & either try to figure it out later when I have more time or hope somebody does the edit for me & makes sure it looks correct.

WonderGamer (talk) 17:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Wolfenstein: The New Order was officially released on 20 May 2014 for all platforms. -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 09:18, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to burst your bubble, but no it wasn't. It was released on the 19th on Steam. Apparently you can't use references on "Talk" pages, so I'll move that down here. See here for verification: http://store.steampowered.com/app/201810

WonderGamer (talk) 14:35, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Steam page says 20th May. Also IGN, Game Informer and Polygon lists the PC date as 20th:

• http://www.ign.com/games/wolfenstein-the-new-order/pc-167457
• http://www.gameinformer.com/games/wolfenstein_the_new_order/b/pc/default.aspx
• http://www.polygon.com/game/wolfenstein-the-new-order/12750 --Mika1h (talk) 22:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

What region are you in? I got the 19th in the US. Unsure if time zone is playing a factor in this...

http://store.steampowered.com/app/201810?cc=us

http://www.wondergamer.net/images/Wolfenstein%20-%20the%20New%20Order%20release%20date.jpg

EDIT: Decided to start a topic on this on the Steam forums: http://steamcommunity.com/app/201810/discussions/0/540743032455059008/

WonderGamer (talk) 03:30, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay, let me settle this for you:

• The game was released on 20 May 2014. Bethesda says so, MachineGames says so, and frankly, what they say is all that matters to me in this discussion.
• In an Australian time zone, the Steam page confirms the game was released on 20 May 2014. According to your Steam discussion, the game unlocked on 19 May at 11p.m. in the United Kingdom? That's because it unlocked elsewhere in the world (it was already 20 May in half the world by that time) at the same time.
• Finally, games break street date all the time, and generally it's not a very notable thing to mention in an article. Even if the game did release earlier than intended on Steam, I don't want it to be mentioned in the article. Unless the "early release" caused controversy, or the developers seemed upset by it, then it's not notable to put in a Wikipedia article.

Despite this, thank you for your valiant efforts to keep Wikipedia a good and reliable website. Though these current suggestions aren't really notable, or correct in some cases, your efforts are definitely appreciated. -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 21:46, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Considering you are now throwing edits on my profile page (or rather, removing relevant information), I'm going to throw one more detail out here that might be the deciding factor on this dispute. A legal copy of the PC version of this game has a requirement of Steam activation to even run it (regardless of whether you purchased retail or not; further details can be found here or any other off-site purchase you can find). Would it not make sense to go by the Steam release date for the PC version of the game if their DRM is a legal requirement to even run it?

Until the information is corrected, that dispute information will stay on my profile. If you attempt to remove it again, I will simple revert your edit once again. You may have control over what goes on this article, but not what goes on my profile page. If you can look at the situation from another person's perspective, this is the same thing you are doing in regards to this article; I am posting the information there because you won't allow it here.

WonderGamer (talk) 17:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

@WonderGamer: Sorry about the edit to your user page. That's none of my business, so I shouldn't have touched it. My apologies.

However, I'm still standing by the fact that the PC release date was 20 May 2014. This is made fact by both the Steam store page (screenshot) and the MobyGames link that you posted (screenshot). I realise that you're passionate about this, but I urge you to focus this passion somewhere else. You appear to be a fantastic editor, and you're great at finding references. But an accidental early release of a game (which is really only a time zone problem) is not notable, and I sincerely recommend that you focus your talents somewhere else. Thanks. -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 21:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

William "B.J." Blazkowicz now updated accordingly

--Niemti (talk) 09:29, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Niemti. You've done a really good job on that article. It looks great. -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 10:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I would say otherwise... He has refused to add the correct release date for the Steam version & my changes were reverted when I attempted to correct it. There is a running discussion on this on the Steam forums where others have confirmed the release was the 19th for the Steam version that he has completely ignored. - WonderGamer (talk) 13:26, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Just because Niemti doesn't agree with you, doesn't mean that he did a bad job on the Blazkowicz article. I've addressed your issues about the Steam release date above. -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 21:46, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Not going to argue with the fact that he did a good job on the article, but the release date is inaccurate & the fact that it's being argued by higher-ups is showing that accuracy apparently isn't a high priority here... I always thought Wikipedia had a proud sense of being an accurate database; maybe I was wrong... Maybe the Steam release date isn't high priority enough to add it, but negating that information under the principle of being a minor detail shows lack of initiative & I have somewhat lost my faith in the accuracy of Wikipedia at this point...

And to answer your question, no; I'm a US citizen, so the release date I am arguing is a (Steam) US release date (apparently accurate in a number of other regions also). I will admit the actual date may differ depending on where you are in the US, but based on the Steam timezone (Washington according to the BBB), it's the 19th; I myself am in Mountain time, a 1 hour difference. - WonderGamer (talk) 01:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, I don't know what you mean by "higher-ups". Secondly, Wikipedia absolutely strives off of being an accurate database, you are not wrong. The thing is, this talk page is the only page on the Internet that I've seen showing an interest in the Steam release date for the game. The game is officially listed as launching on May 20, 2014, so that's what the article will list. Finally, I believe the game launched on Steam at midnight in Sweden (where MachineGames are based), which explains this whole dilemma that we're discussing. -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 06:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

System requirements

I attempted to add the system requirements to the article only to have them almost immediately removed. How are the system requirements not relevant to the article?? MisterZed (talk) 14:38, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• As I stated in my edit summary, the documentation for the System requirements template state that the template is to be used "for articles where system requirements are deemed to have importance." As far as I'm aware, the system requirements for Wolfenstein: The New Order aren't deemed to have any importance; as you said in your edit summary, minimum system requirements have not been published, further proving my point. If you still believe that the system requirements should be included in the article (which is a perfectly reasonable belief), then please feel free to reply, or get a third opinion. -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 14:55, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
  • So why have you removed my edits to several other games now as well? I cannot think of an instance where the system requirements are NOT important to the article. People who want to know the system requirements of a given game are more often than not going to come to the Wikipedia article first. They should be able to find that information here. Furthermore, your edits don't show any logic whatsoever. You removed the system requirements I added for Bioshock Infinite, Battlefield 4, and Crysis 3, yet the articles for each of their predecessors (Bioshock 2, Battlefield 3, and Crysis 2) all have the system requirements in the article. Why haven't you removed them from those articles?MisterZed (talk) 15:02, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
    • I have no idea what you're talking about. I didn't remove the System requirements template from BioShock Infinite, Battlefield 4 and Crysis 3; I think you're mistaking me for someone else. Thus, my edits do display logic. Additionally, if someone wishes to discover the system requirements of a game, then a quick Google search can easily help them. -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 15:14, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
      • System requirements do have relevance when you consider PC versions. To say it has no relevance would mean you're likely a console gamer. There's your third opinion, although it's already been proven that my opinion means nothing here, so I don't expect you to change your mind on this...

@MisterZed

I don't expect you're going to get anywhere on this situation, Rhain1999 is adamant about keeping his article as his own & isn't allowing edits.

@Rhain1999

If you really are going to take protection of your article so personal, why don't you request it be locked from edits so nobody can edit it. It's obvious any edits made to it is going to be reversed, so this article is a lost cause & I can't really see any purpose in ANYBODY trying to keep it updated; I can only imagine this being the case with any other articles you've written...

- WonderGamer (talk) 11:01, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I am both a PC gamer and a console gamer. The problem that I have with adding the System requirements to the page is that the PC version doesn't particularly show any significance over the other versions. However, @MisterZed: if you want to add the System requirements to the page, then you are welcome to do so (as long as the table is collapsed, I'd say).

@WonderGamer: you're clearly upset that I'm not accepting of your edit. This is not "my" article; the only articles that are mine are those inside my userspace. I do not wish to lock this article from edits, because I am happy for other users to edit it. Your opinion is welcome here, but that doesn't always mean it will be accepted. If you look at the Revision history, you can see that I am happy to accept other edits, so long as they remain in the guidelines and are notable. That's where your request failed: the game was released on 20 May 2014. Any statement trying to reveal otherwise isn't particularly notable unless it hit headlines (which it didn't). This article is absolutely not a "lost cause" as it is still editable by anyone. And as a matter of fact, if you look at other articles that I've written, or significantly contributed to, (Red Dead Redemption, Grand Theft Auto V, Watch Dogs, The Music of Grand Theft Auto V, Trevor Philips, Max Payne 3, Grand Theft Auto IV), then you can see that I am also very accepting about edits on those. Unless it's vandalism, or its not notable.

So, next time you go about requesting an edit, prepare to be shut down, and try to act like a civilised human if you are. Thank you. -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 20:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

"So, next time you go about requesting an edit, prepare to be shut down" - Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 20:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

That sounded like a threat to me. You just made it sound like any edits I make in the future are going to be reversed regardless of accuracy or not. Is there any reason in even having an account on Wikipedia anymore? I would say no if my efforts are just going to be in vain... Well maybe that's for the best; my Wiki syntax sucks anyways, I struggle just trying to make edits on here. I struggle with it regardless of the difficulty I have with it because I care to keep information accurate, but seems it may not be worth the effort put into it anymore. - WonderGamer (talk) 01:45, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not a theat. You keep interpreting my comments incorrectly. What I meant is that you should always be prepared to be shut down, and continue to act like a civilised human if you are; don't thrash out at other users for rejecting your request or disagreeing with your opinion. There is definitely reason in having a Wikipedia account now, and most your edits will be accepted (given that they are reliable and notable). If you're having trouble with your Wiki syntax, then that's no reason to quit completely. I appreciate your efforts, but they are just not notable to add to the article. I recommend that you continue to contribute to Wikipedia, even if you just add suggestions to talk pages; everything is helpful. I really hope you can see why I disagree with your request. Thank you. -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 02:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Perks

Someone should add some information on the perks system. I would but this game isn't "fresh" enough in my mind for what I write to be 100% accurate. I did add information on Perks at Wolfenstein: The Old Blood; maybe you could copy that and change what you need to? I might attempt. —DangerousJXD (talk) 03:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Wolfenstein: The New Order/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AdrianGamer (talk · contribs) 15:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. The article is much longer than I had expected

Lead and other sections

• for PlayStation 3, PlayStation 4, Xbox 360, Xbox One and Microsoft Windows - for "the" PlayStation 3... Or Put Microsoft Windows in front of PlayStation 3.
• May worth mentioning that this is the seventh main entry in the series and mentioned that it is a sequel to 2009's Wolfenstein instead of the first entry since it
• its levels are navigated on foot - All levels or most of its levels? Some segments of some levels are rail shooters where you sit on a plane and shoot enemies' plane, something like that.
• The game's attempt to delve into character development of Blazkowicz is a break from series tradition—a choice from the developers to interest players in the story. - Rephrase it to something like "The game also attempts to delve into character development of Blazkowicz, unlike its predecessors" - Sounds slightly more neutral
• They also aimed to portray him in a heroic fashion, as opposed to an antihero - Blazkowicz is an antihero in other Wolfenstein games?
• Development duties were shared between many studios worldwide. - Not mentioned in other sections. Not supported by sources
• Old Blood was never mentioned in other section. It should also be specified that it is a standalone expansion, not a standalone game.
• To progress through the story, players take on enemies throughout levels - "Take on" does not sound specific enough
• Alternatively, players can ambush enemies, which will result in an intense firefight between the two parties - That really depends on the nature of the ambush.
• which will result in an intense firefight between the two parties - Should use present tense
• The game gives players a wide variety of weapon options—they can be found on the ground, retrieved from dead enemies, or removed from their stationary position and carried around - No mention in the source given.
• and a laser cannon can be transformed into a cutting tool. - I am assuming the part where you must use laser to cut wires, so "Cutting tool" also doesn't sound specific enough
• You should talk about that there is a variety of weapons before talking about weapon customization
• Gameplay is honestly a bit short. If there is any more mechanics featured in the game, try to fill it in. If there is no other mechanics, then the current section should be fine
• The plot section is a bit too long. Try to cut it down a bit.
• which requires codes from the Nazi lunar research facility to operate - May added that the facility is located on moon.
• it was announced that The New Order would launch on 20 May in North America, on 22 May in Australia, and on 23 May in Europe - Year of release is important as well.
• All pre-orders of the game grant the purchaser an access code to the upcoming Doom - Doom is linked to Doom 4. The correct page name is Doom (2016 video game)
• Is the quote for the German release really necessary?
• use id Software's id Tech 5 engine, after Rage (2011) - Try to avoid brackets
• The adventure aspect does not define the past Wolfenstein games. They revolutionize it with New Order, according to the source given
• Actually there is a lot of quote in the development section, some of them are unnecessary. Using too much such quotes may hurt neutrality in my opinion. A small portion of the quotes used sound like an extension of what has already been written instead of providing more useful information.
• The engine also allowed the team to develop the game simultaneously on different platforms - Not in the source given
• many of which reveal that he has been traumatized from some of his experiences - traumatized by, not from
• However, id Software wished for Blazkowicz to be portrayed differently in the game. - "for" is not necessary
• Wilhelm "Deathshead" Strasse, the game's main antagonist, has been previously featured as the tertiary antagonist of Return to Castle Wolfenstein (2001) and main antagonist of Wolfenstein (2009). - Try to avoid bracket.
• The team was acquired by Bethesda. The article does not mention that. The origins of MachineGames can also be briefly mentioned as well, considering The New Order is their first game since their establishment
• The team placed a high importance on the game's music, and aimed for a high standard. - The high standard is not necessary as every developer said similar things
• During the game's development, composer Mick Gordon traveled to Sweden to meet with the team - Should wikilink Mick Gordon
• More information about marketing and pre-release reception would be great.
• Metacritic, which assigns a normalized rating in the 0–100 range, calculated an average score of 81 out of 100 - "which assigns a normalized rating in the 0–100 range" is not necessary. It is something that I assume everyone understand
• Reviewers liked the game's concept,[64][68][70][77][78] narrative[70][75][79][80] and combat mechanics.[67][68][73][75][76] - You don't really need all the sources here, considering that these sources are used again in later paragraphs
• The stealth sections of the game also received praise, with Simon Miller of VideoGamer.com lauding the shooting and stealth mechanics, naming the former as "solid" - Should focus on his praise on stealth, not shooting
• Do we need to mentioned that it received a honorable mention? Placed in the 23th place doesn't seem to be an award or nomination
• No obvious copyright violations according to the this tool. But I have checked most of the sources and found some close-paraphrasing

Source

to add a huge amount of variety and details to the environments.

Article

to add a large amount of variety and details to the environment

Source

require — quite understandably — that their work never be associated with any Nazi imagery.

Article

require that their work never be associated with any Nazi imagery

Source

a quarter of all games sold in the United Kingdom and accounting for 36% of revenue.

Article

totaling a quarter of all games sold in the United Kingdom and accounting for 36% of revenue

Sources/Images

• Source 4 is an article written by a contributor in Forbes. It should not be used
• Wikilink Gamer Network for source 28
• Is Dead End Thrills, NeoGaf and VideoGameWriters a reliable source?
• Things like "The Escapist Staff", "Cheat Code Central Staff", " New Game Network Staff", and "Giant Bomb Staff" are not really necessary
• Cover art is a bit too large. The size should be around 300x400
• File:Wolfenstein The New Order cover system.png does not show much of the cover system. An actual gameplay screenshot would be nice.
• Don't leave some of the fields of the template of File:Wolfenstein The New Order development.jpg empty
• No dead link

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and y:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

A solid article. If you had addressed all the problem, the article should be good to go. AdrianGamer (talk) 12:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, AdrianGamer! I've gone through and fixed most of your concerns. I just wanted to let you know that I'm still trying to find a replacement for the Gameplay image; it's actually proving difficult, so if I can't find one soon, I might have to hop in the game and take a screenshot myself.

If you have any further concerns, please don't hesitate to let me know. Thanks! -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 23:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Nice job getting most issues addressed so quickly. I still have some concerns though

• The close paraphrasing for the sales part is still there.
• I thought that being placed in 21st, 12th, 13th or 11th is still not an award or nomination
• Old Blood is not mentioned in other sections besides the lead. AdrianGamer (talk) 02:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I've tried to fix your remaining concerns. One thing I noticed, however, is that the close paraphrasing that you wrote above is not entirely accurate; you've made it look like the article copied the source verbatim, but your transcription of the source is actually inaccurate. Take another look at the source, if you don't understand what I mean.

However, I understand that the text in the article is still fairly similar to the source, so let me know if you'd like me to try and change it more. -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 03:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for my mistake then. I didn't realize that, probably some mistakes I made when I am copy-pasting. The two sentences look different enough, so this shouldn't be a problem anymore I guess. Wolfenstein: The New Order promoted to . Congratulations. If you still have the intention to further improve the article. I have some suggestions. You can further trim down the plot section and write about the origins of the developer, and ZeniMax's acquisition of it. But for now, the article is good to go.

It is also impressive to see that you can produce so many GAs within this two months, with The Last of Us articles, that table tennis game and this one. Very outstanding. AdrianGamer (talk) 08:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Carrie Coon

@CapnZapp: In The A.V. Club's interview, Carrie Coon acknowledges that she worked with Raven Software one three projects: Return to Castle Wolfenstein, Wolverine, and a third game that she doesn't remember. This last one is probably Singularity (another Raven game she is credited in). The editor corrects that "Return to Castle Wolfenstein" should actually be its sequel, which is Wolfenstein 2009 (both were developed by Raven). No other video game is mentioned and Coon is not credited in The New Order (which was also not developed by Raven, rather by MachineGames in Sweden). I don't think that she was involved with The New Order and consequently should not be mention here. Regards, Lordtobi (✉) 12:43, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

k CapnZapp (talk) 14:37, 26 November 2019 (UTC)