Talk:Assassin's Creed Rogue/Archive 1

Archive 1

Ties with Unity section

It was made clear after the game was announced that Rogue would be tied to Unity in some way. We now know that reason, and it needs to be listed. Wikipedia does not censor and does not care about spoiling. This section, to my knowledge, was first reverted at 11:06, 9 November 2014‎ by Prisonermonkeys and then reinstated and reverted multiple time (with Prisonermonkeys still being active on the conflict). There is no policy based reason for removing this content. When someone writes the synopsis they can add this to the end of that, but until then there is no reason to remove the section. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not removing it because of spoilers or censorship. I'm removing it because it's badly-written and doesn't put the scene in any kind of context. It might be important to demonstrate the connections between the texts, but your problem is that, in its current form, it doesn't offer any insight as to how it is related to the events of Rogue, which is a problem because this article is ABOUT Rogue.

Ideally, it would be included in a full write-up of the plot so that the reader can understand it in context. If you do not know the plot, why are you trying to explain it? You have presented something as being instrumental to the story without explaining how or why it is so important. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not removing it because of spoilers or censorship. Your previous edit summaries seem to belie your statements. If something is badly written, you don't remove it, you fix it. In full context, it is important because it is the final act that draws Shay fully into the Templar Order. Furthermore, the box is particularly important to the series and at least the "Kenway saga" (which oddly includes as many (or more) non-Kenways than Kenways...) as this is the same box Adewale captured in Freedom Cry. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I can't fix it because I'm not in a position to. I haven't gotten to that point in the story. The section on its own thus makes no sense despite the importance of it to the story because it is not framed by any context. You're trying to point out the connections to every other title, but you haven't pointed out the connection to this title, which is poor editing because the article it is appearing in specifically addresses this title. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

@Muscat Hoe: I would invite you to read the entire discussion here, since given your comments in you last edits, you clearly haven't.

The box, whatever it contains and however it relates to the wider series, plays a role in Rogue first. Therefore, its presence in the game must be explained before you address its place in the series.

Look at the Piece of Eden in Revelations. It has ties to the previous games—but how can you expect a reader to understand its connection to the series without first explaining its relevance and its presence in Revelations first? You cannot; it would sound like utter nonsense. The same is happening here. There is no explanation of what the box does, how and why Shay comes to acquire it, or what effect it has on the story or themes. Its inclusion in the article assumes that the reader is familiar with the events of Unity and Freedom Cry first, which is an assumption you cannot make. A reader should be able to follow the "random page" link on the Wikipedia main page, find themselves in this article, and understand it on the first read through. The passage on the box is at odds with this.

It's not about censorship. It's about context—the way everything is positioned relative to everything else. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:29, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

It is about context and needs to be updated, but that's no excuse to remove information until other information is present. You can build on what's there. It's pretty obvious that the ties to Unity will be mentioned once a plot summary is written. No need to delete it until that's finished though.

Except that until such time as a plot summary is written, it will continue to make no sense. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• To be clear, I think Prisonermonkeys' argument is a bunch of crock. If a section is incomplete, you put a notice that the section is a stub, you don't delete it. Their actions reek of WP:SPOILERS. I have reported Prisonermonkeys for edit-warring as they violated the 3RR. I have not reverted him solely because I do not want to approach the 3RR (I believe I am at two reverts in the last 24 hours). Muscat Hoe, you are fully in the clear. I strongly urge you to revert Prisonermonkeys' deletion. Thegreyanomaly (talk) ##:##, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I consider your actions to be an attack. You have clearly ignored WP:AGF and accused me of breaking WP:SPOILERS without cause, and you are arbitrarily ruling on the merits of debate without actually considering the arguments laid out. You have made no attempt to resolve the situation, and have instead tried to force edits through. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 18:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

And your unilateral four reverts (I at least have one other person actively in agreement with my view point) is a clear violation of Wikipedia policy of not edit-warring. I was the one who initiated this discussion. The user with recent history of being edit-warrior and reverts the page four time in 24 hours is more apt to be considered the one forcing things through. I have read your arguments, and they are hallow. If the section lacks context, you note that the section is incomplete or complete it, but you do not remove it. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 18:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Until such time as that context is added, there is no need to detail the scene. Right now, it's enough to know that there is a connection between Rogue and Unity. Going into detail without explaining the context does nothing, and sticking a tag on it doesn't address the way it's a bad edit. Meanwhile, you have repeatedly ignored AGF, have made no effort to resolve the issue (it takes more than starting a discussion on the talk page; that discussion needs to be constructive), and have run to 3RR to try and stifle anyone who disagrees with you. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:56, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

"Anyone who disagrees with you" is a little much. It is just you that disagrees. The one person who made the same reverts as you backed away. If Muscat Hoe had violated the 3RR as you have, I would have reported him as well. Violating the 3RR is never allowed, even if you think your edits were justified. It's been 24 hours since my first edit, I have re-added the section and partly expanded it. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

That's better. Not, you know, much better, but it's a start. Now all you need to do is understand how an encyclopedia works, and we might actually get somewhere. You could have saved a whole lot of bother by doing a proper write-up in the first place. No detail is so imperative that it needs to be included, even if doing so renders parts of the article unreadable. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Assassin's Creed Unity which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 00:15, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Assassin's Creed Rogue remaster wishlist 2017-18?

Add more ship names in free roam (ACR)

Make The Gerfaut More aggressive (ACR)

Make British soldiers become friendly when you're a Templar.

Add Level 66 Man O wars Level 46 Frigates Level 30 Brigs And level 15 schooner in the remaster

And Make sure you guys "don't downgrade the games" In recent years you guys keep downgrading graphics like you guys did to Tom Clancy's The Division and Wild Dogs 2.

Remove Spanish Captains as gang stalkers The North Atlantic.

Make fire gunpowder more authentic.

Fix and correct all glitches.

Add Spain army and navy to intervene.

Update or recolor ship hulls to make it more authentic in the 1750s-1777.

And finally, make The naval campaign more accurate. Palmount45 (talk) 22:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)