Talk:Wolfenstein (2009 video game)

Untitled

This game was shown as an RPG for cell phones at Quakecon 2008. The article here neither affirms or denies this source and the facts seem blurred. Can someone confirm? http://www.gametrailers.com/player/37940.html 216.188.250.222 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 09:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reference for the release date given? --69.114.146.31 (talk) 03:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

In one of the trailers they pull the Duke Nukem Forever bit - "when its done" Rogutaan (talk) 18:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Reason : Title Change, Suggession : New Article

As there are several "Wolfenstein" named "(video game)'s" it actually means the franchise, not precisely this game. That's why I moved this page from "Wolfenstein_(video_game)" to "Wolfenstein_(2009_video_game)" And I think there should be a "Wolfenstein (video game)" page too, as the master page for all these games, that sequels usually have.

But there's a problem, cause, all the links to "Wolfenstein_(video_game)" have to be changed to "Wolfenstein_(2009_video_game)" where it needs to be. I'll be doing this, but there would be several intermediate state, all be fine afterwords, please just don't keep reverting them. Thanks... – Deb ‖ Poke • EditList ‖ 03:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

There's already a franchise article at Wolfenstein (series), putting another one at "Wolfenstein (video game)" not only wouldn't make sense, but would also be redundant. Date disambiguation shouldn't be used unless there is a conflict between the exact titles; there's only one game where the title is "Wolfenstein" exactly, and that's this one. -- Sabre (talk) 12:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Kudos to whoever removed the spam from earlier on the page. I tried changing it myself.. it said something like "Wolfenstein failure developed by" etc etc. I changed it to "Wolfenstein was developed by" but it appears someone revised it further so yeah, thumbs up. 76.182.67.232 (talk) 04:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Michael

Linux game? There's no linux port —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.11.112.251 (talk) 16:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

removed it --206.11.112.251 (talk) 19:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Reception section

We need to source some of those claims, until then I think the weasel word indicators will have to stay. What do you guys think? 15:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

IGN's review compliments the single player and questions the multiplayer aspect of the game: "Then it's on to multiplayer, and it's interesting in that it goes for a decidedly retro look and feel; it ditches the glossier graphics of the single-player game to give character models and animation that is reminiscent of Return to Castle Wolfenstein, the 2001 game. Yet the multiplayer modes themselves feel relatively rudimentary and they aren't as deep as the popular Return to Castle Wolfenstein mod Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory, which is puzzling." ... "Plus, the game only supports up to 12 players, which means that the matches lack the scale of other games that have 16." (on page 2) The 12 player limit is rather low when compared to its predecessors (RTCW, RTCW:ET), which regularly host 32 and even 64 player servers. I'm not sure if this was done due to small map sizes or because of the engine. Doom 3 had a 4 player limitation due to bandwidth considerations. Enemy Territory: Quake Wars had to swap out the network portion of the id Tech 4 engine to allow for larger servers. IGN's followup on sales included a link to gamestats.com which puts the average rating around 7/10. There should be some other reviews there that could be used as citations for the reception section. --Superlgn (talk) 18:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

supernatural realm and adition to the engine?

In the article it's said that among the improvements made to id Tech 4 is 'the addition of a supernatural realm, called The Veil'. This is more of a gameplay feature than a engine improvement. It should put on a new section titled something like 'Game features' or something like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.92.9.2 (talk) 18:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

   ------------------

Ok through gamespots critic score average its getting 7.8 http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/returntocastlewolfenstein2006/review.html?mode=web&tag=scoresummary;critic-score

which translates to me as above average for a "modern title"

Gamespot themselves give it a 7.5 http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/returntocastlewolfenstein2006/index.html?tag=result;title;0

Due to MP begin broken and the SP being unbalance/too easy I'd give it a 6...but only because new games tend to be 7+ automatically...

VG charts has listed its sales at 0.28 Million between the ps360 http://www.vgchartz.com/games/index.php?name=Wolfenstein

No PC sales data yet, maybe after Xmas they should hit 1M if they get on the ball and get it fixed but sales wise it looks dismal as it takes 1M sales alone to break even on most modern titles...... then again I am a witless hax, thus why I don't post on the main page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zippydsmlee (talk • contribs) 07:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Gameplay section

How come this article doesn't have a Gameplay section yet? 19:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Isenstadt

Something struck me - Isenstadt sounds quite a bit like Ingolstadt, a real place in Germany with a lot of occult history. Maybe id/Raven based the idea of Isenstadt on it? I have no references pointing to that being the case, it's just an idea of mine, nothing more...

What do you folks think? --Dark Apostrophe (talk) 08:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice idea, but that is entirely unlikely. First, Ingolstadt doesnt have an "occult history". If you´re referring to the Illuminati, the original Illuminati from Ingolstadt were the exact opposite of occultists. Second, the game city is neither in looks, shape or flair reminiscent of Ingolstadt. And third, given the atrocious and inept butchering of anything the creators assumed to be german I would be surprised if the authors could find Germany on a map of Western Europe, much less know anything about Ingolstadt. Christ on a pushbike, they even translated historical and world wide known Wehrmacht and Nazi slogans with Online translators...

In fact, I believe that same incompetence is what spawned the name "Isenstadt"; I believe it is a reference to "Eisen", the german word for iron. And since the whole world apparently shares a pronounciation with the USA, and noone at Raven or id Software had the 5 seconds to look it up online, the developers wrote it phonetically as "Isen" - which, spoken in German, would sound like "Eesen" to an english listener. Vandervahn (talk) 17:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, ok. I don't speak german, so I can't comment on it. But yeah, compared to the quality of for example ETQW, Wolfenstein was a disappointment. It saddens me that id Software would put their stamp on this game. What do you mean when you say that the illuminati are the exact opposite of occultists? I thought the Illuminati were just that - an occult organisation. But then again, I'm not an expert in any of this, just speculating. --Dark Apostrophe (talk) 12:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Layoffs and firings

Someone better than me might want to add layoffs at raven http://www.thatvideogameblog.com/2009/08/27/layoffs-at-wolfenstein-developer-raven-software/

and the MP team was fired http://www.thatvideogameblog.com/2009/08/19/wolfenstein-multiplayer-developers-fired-on-release-day/

I would assume its not ravens fault the MP dev dropped the ball on this but then again they didn't not do a great job with the game, still its not worse than RTCW SP at least the flaws make it nearly as good. Least you can edit the defs with alittle hacking so the SP has been alot more fun for me since I been screwing with it. Lets hope a proper SDK which they say they will release comes out!! Zippydsmlee (talk) 07:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

No offense, but this isn't really all that noteworthy. "and the MP team was fired" isn't accurate. Some employees were let go at Endrant Studios. This is not at all uncommon in the video game development world. They over-hire to get stuff done and then they adjust staff based on projections. The vast majority of time, this means they let people go while they search for a new title. This isn't like with Blue Omega Entertainment, who developed Damnation, and who did completely fold. 96.253.89.231 (talk) 19:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Would they not hire the people they need on a fee basis, temp basis, or contract basis rather then hiring full-time people and then letting them go?

"the company is offering severance packages and job placement support for those getting axed." -ThatVideoGameBlog Megapeen (talk) 18:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Sales

IGN and Big Download have some articles up saying that Wolfenstein has sold only 17,000 copies for the PC and 106,000 copies overall in its first month. I recall UT3 selling around 35,000 copies for the PC in its first few weeks and that was considered poor, or much lower than expected anyway. --Superlgn (talk) 00:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Why did someone remove the bit on the page under reception about the sales figures? Megapeen (talk) 17:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The reason given was that your edits were unsourced and exhibited bad grammar. When you go into things like how many copies have been sold, you need to cite a reliable source. This ties in with the verifiability policy that, in a nutshell, states that whatever info is added, must be able to be traced back to a credible source. So even though what you're adding might be totally true, the origin of the claim must be included. You cite sources by adding with the source website sandwiched in the middle. Eik Corell (talk) 05:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

EndSights. The sales figures are from the NPD Group, but I believe you need an account on there or a subscription to view the figures, I'm not sure. I would've thought IGN was a credible enough source. In anycase I believe someone should write up a sales section on it's own, or within the reception section.

This was my edit;

"In it's first month of sales it sold just over 17,000 PC copies, combined with consoles sales, the game sold an estimated 106,000 copies in it's first month. Activision reportedly laid-off a number of Raven team members after the game was released. Several developers at Endrant Studios, who handled the game’s multiplayer mode were let go on release day as well."

Revision;

In it's first month of sales it sold just over 17,000 PC copies and combined with consoles sales, the game sold an estimated 106,000 copies in it's first month.

..

I think the statement is fairly neutral all things considered. Megapeen (talk) 15:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Those are US retail sales, not overall sales. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.117.186 (talk) 02:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

References

Gamespot's Review

I noticed that the article missed some things from the review here. Gamespot also critisized for the plot being told in boring cutscenes and an unbalanced level of challenges (such as when you have to look for a Veil curcuit at the power station, which is not indicated and shown by your compass, causing difficulty in campaigns). - Rockmandrum (talk) 14:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Wolfenstein (2009 video game). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090916044404/http://ttimo.vox.com:80/library/post/id-software-and-linux.html to http://ttimo.vox.com/library/post/id-software-and-linux.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)