Talk:Red Faction: Guerrilla

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Red Faction: Guerrilla article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find video game sources: "Red Faction: Guerrilla" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk

Video games 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 articles

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

Purple Francis (7 participants)
Gilman Louie (2 participants)
Yoshimitsu (3 participants)
Dr. Wily (8 participants)
First Internet Backgammon Server (3 participants)
Emote (2 participants)
Preston Arsement (6 participants; relisted)
Jackpot World (3 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

sequel?

Question: Do we know it's the sequel to red faction 2? I doubt we do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.9.212.224 (talk) 06:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no. It has been confirmed that Red Faction: Guerrilla does take place 50 years after the events of the first Red Faction and about 45 years after RF:II. But, the developer has made a point of saying that this is more of a sequel to RF rather than RF:II

GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 07:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Game Informer

Game Informer is having an in-depth preview. JAF1970 (talk) 22:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Declaring a potential conflict of interest

Per Wikipedia's policies, I'm going ahead and declaring I have a potential conflict of interest in this article as an employee of the company developing the game. I'll be trying to keep my edits to just adding sources/fixing mistakes. - JNighthawk (talk) 07:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please continue to do so, but I believe that most of the problem has been taken care of since then.

GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 07:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speculation

Whilst I have assumed good faith, I have removed the following text again:

"The story takes place 50 years after the original Red Faction. The EDF who came at the end of Red Faction has stayed and Mars has been dominated by the EDF. Then a guerrilla movement has occurred, resulting in all out war between the miners and civilians on mars, and the EDF. The games goal is to cause as much damage to the EDF as possible, forcing them to leave the district, but they can come back later. It will be a sort of ebb and flow type of warfare."

Not only is it speculation about a game that is still a year away from release, but it barely makes sense in English. Further more, the supplied "reference" simply pointed to Wikipedia's own article on Game Informer. Game Informer's own website contains no review of this game and the other GI reference, to the March 08 cover, mentions the game in just one sentence (ie. "We also take Red Faction: Guerrilla apart, getting an in-depth look at the game’s amazing destructible environments"). Astronaut (talk) 00:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you need better written source, how about this one at shack news? Astronaut (talk) 00:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Further more, the supplied "reference" simply pointed to Wikipedia's own article on Game Informer.' No, it pointed to the magazine Game Informer; specifically the March 2008 issue, which contains a detailed explanation of the basic gameplay model. Citations aren't required to be Internet pages. --DocumentN (talk) 01:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you created the reference incorrectly. When I clicked on the link (the one labelled with the little [4]), it went straight to Game Informer. Following links through to the online version I could find no mention of this game. A google search did however find another source - shacknews.com - with much the same info as I removed. Since, my claims of "speculation" were a little harsh, I've since updated the article to use the new reference and improve the game description so it makes sense. Astronaut (talk) 01:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a point of fact, it's okay if the link goes to the Game Informer article, as long as the reference stated it was from Game Informer. It is 100% allowed by Wikipedia rules and encouraged to cite written sources. Since they're written sources, you obviously can't find them online, but they are completely acceptable to be used on Wikipedia. - JNighthawk (talk) 03:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there it seems as if someone had messed around with several other articles and messed up the timeline completely. The correct timeline is as follows: RF-2158 RF2-2163 RF:G-2208 We know this as RF 2 is confirmed to have occured in 2163, and RF occured 5 years prior. Also, since RF:G occurs 50 years into the future from RF, RF:G must therefor occur in 2208. I am worried someone may be tampering with the articles without having any real knowledge of the timeline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.241.98.157 (talk) 20:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Press coverage

Can someone add some about the recent press coverage RFG has received at THQ's Gamers Day? Here's a few links to previews/interviews:

[1] - Video interview with Rick White, producer of RFG
[2] - Gamespot preview of RFG
[3] - 1UP's preview of RFG
[4] - GameDaily preview of RFG

There's plenty more, but most of them are saying the same thing. If someone doesn't add them, I'll go about doing it myself. - JNighthawk (talk) 01:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requests:

As the main editor of this page currently, I apologize for any errors there may be and the lack of references. I request that nobody destroys my page, but I do encourage people to add references and extra details as they come along.

Thanks, ~GroundZ3R0 002 —Preceding unsigned comment added by GroundZ3R0 002 (talk • contribs) 08:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. In the multiplayer section, the two modes in the beta are listed as Team Anarchy and a CTF-like mode. The "CTF-like mode" is Damage Control, which is really more like king of the hill, rather than CTF, as the two teams aren't vying to bring an object back to base. Also, there's no references for the Multiplayer section - it'd help the article a lot if there were some. I'll try and find some. - JNighthawk (talk) 13:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject videogames assessment

Article rated start-class low-importance, until more details are available there is nowhere for the article to go, higher ratings require a volume of content which cannot currently be written into the article. I've bumped the importance rating back down to low (same as the other RF games), if the game does become a milestone then the importance rating can be bumped up later. The article currently looks at the game broadly and will stand editors in good stead to continue improving as more information becomes available, keep up the good work. Someone another 10:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

pictures?

so far the only one i've seen is the box art for the PS3 cover? anything from the demo/press releases? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.28.14 (talk) 22:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pushing the limits

The section refering to an article that claimed the XBox 360 had reached it's limits was biased towards defasing that game system. The interviewer jumped straight from the general game industry to the XBox 360. The PS3 was mentioned in a seperate interview as also being pushed, although for the life of me I can't find the link, and as the mention stands, it is incredibly biased, leaving out all parallel mention of the PS3. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deshara218 (talk • contribs) 12:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gameplay statement

I removed a statement after the part that said if you wander into not-yet-unlocked areas of the map, you'll get shot freely by the EDF, blah blah blah... I removed the part that said "you wont last long", because it isn't necessarily true, and the fact that things will get harder for you is already implied.Drew3110 (talk) 20:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Drew3110[reply]

still slated for release...

There was a sentence towards the end that said the game was still slated for release on June whater here, and June whatevr there, and seeing as the game has already been released, I removed it because it was outdated.

Reference?

Is it possible that the statement by Alec Mason is a reference to the video game Freedom Fighters (game) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.70.14 (talk) 01:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What statement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drew3110 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Vogel

I noticed that one of the games locations is a "Mount Vogel". I may be wrong but this seems like a reference to Dane Vogel from Saints Row 2. A game also by Volition that featured the Ultor Corporation. Any thoughts ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.202.93 (talk) 07:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Activation

How about adding a warning to people that the PC version requires an internet connection to activate the game before you can play it AND that the box does not make reference to this fact. That's right, you buy the game, take it home, install it and if you have no internet connection, unless you do something illegal, you can't play the game you paid for. Brilliant. And game publishers wonder why people pirate games - because people who buy them can't f'ing play them!