Talk:Assassin's Creed Unity

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Assassin's Creed: Unity[edit]

Shouldn't this page be renamed to "Assassin's Creed: Unity"? You know, with a colon? --85.189.105.175 (talk) 18:54, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No reliable sources have stated as such, including Ubisoft. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:58, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They did this with Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag as well, so shouldn't we remove the colon there? --85.189.105.175 (talk) 19:00, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources have used the colon with ACIV. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:05, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I must say, I happen to be in agreement with the anon here; these articles have, to date, always been changed to include a colon once the game has released. That said, as Favre has already mentioned, no reliable sources use a colon, and so the article must remain where it is for the time being. (Same goes for Rogue.) --Jasca Ducato (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Jasca Ducato:, I brought to the VG project about past games using the colon. I wanted to see if some did or didn't officially. It was hard to tell either way. But for these at least, they are definitely without colons. Wanted you to know about that, as you do good work on the AC articles. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:48, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Forbes' video game articles are usually by contributors. That particular blogger at least, does not seem very reliable. He is using a colon in the title, but every review he has quoted in that very post uses the title without a colon. Sabre (talk) 05:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

resolution controversy[edit]

should we include a section talking about the controversy where the game was locked at 900p on both versions "to avoid all the debates and stuff,"? Osh33m (talk) 22:31, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where are all the sources for it and are they numerous or are there little about it? I wouldn't be surprised if either happened in any case. Tutelary (talk) 01:27, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
they're pretty numerous.
http://kotaku.com/ac-unity-will-have-same-specs-on-xbox-one-and-ps4-to-av-1643054770
http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/10/06/assassins-creed-unity-locked-at-900p-for-both-xbox-one-ps4
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/assassins-creed-unity-runs-at-900p-30fps-on-xbox-o/1100-6422771/
when it was first announced, the internet experienced an uproar from gamers. you want more? 129.49.10.155 (talk) 01:59, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's right you can find lots of sources about that around the internet, but as per WP:CRYSTAL Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors--Chamith (talk) 07:11, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We also don't discuss specs of a game. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that we don't discuss specs of the game, but the point of bringing this up is the fact that the topic was HUGELY controversial. There was an uproar on the internet about it. and that is why I think we should have a section about it on the asscreed unity page. Osh33m (talk) 21:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At the end of the day, it still is just spec info. The controversy is just fanboys who feel certain resolutions are required to play game becoming unhappy. The game will still work as it is. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I dunno if I'd call the outrage fanboyish, considering ubisoft's reasoning was to "avoid all the debates and stuff." literally. For that reason specifically and what happened going forward is why I think it deserves its section in controversies next to the gender crap. It is the equivalent of the mass effect 3 article having a section about the ending controversy Osh33m (talk) 22:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But both of those are about content of the game, not specs. So it still would fail per WP:GAMECRUFT. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:43, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I give up. Osh33m (talk) 05:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense, Favre1fan93. Gamecruft does not apply at all in this case. The only question is whether the spec issue is in itself notable. We never exclude any info on any other basis than that. If the spec issue is being discussed in reliable sources, then we will most definitely include it. Period. And since in addition to the above-mentioned sources e.g. Eurogamer discusses the resolution issue here, and Gamespot even dedicates several articles to this particular issue, this does easily warrant inclusion in the article. I don't even know how anyone could get the idea that we ever exclude notable info based on what type of info it is, but the "fan" part of your username provides a clue. --85.197.23.27 (talk) 14:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, well with that being said... should we go ahead and proceed to add the resolutions controversy to the article? Osh33m (talk) 17:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I believe someone should add it because considering the wealth of sources above, the article simply isn't complete without it. --85.197.23.27 (talk) 18:06, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay well I'm gonna go ahead and add it since no one is objecting now... Osh33m (talk) 05:13, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PC reception[edit]

Reception on PC is not mentioned. I find this suspicious, considering every review I have read says it is absolutely terrible.

Actually it's because there are no reviews for PC yet. I suggest you wait for a while.---Chamith (talk) 03:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Add review[edit]

How do I add game reviews from my website onto those on Wikipedia, please? I was recommended to ask on the game's talk page, and my link for this one is below. Thanks. http://dvd-fever.co.uk/assassins-creed-unity-on-pc-dvd-the-dvdfever-review/ Dvdfever (talk) 19:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: -You should not add them anywhere on Wikipedia and if you to try to spam it on Wikipedia, it'll likely to be blacklisted. See also WP:CITESPAM. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 13:58, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think my request has been understood. I'm not looking to spam your site, I'm looking to join the list of those sites you already refer to in the "Reception" section here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassin%27s_Creed_Unity#Reception Dvdfever (talk) 14:09, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: -Your request has been understood and declined per WP:SPAMLINK. Why do you want to add 'your website' link to Wikipedia, anyway? How does it contribute to improve encyclopedia? Are you aware that Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion? See also, WP:LINKSTOAVOID. Thank you! Anupmehra -Let's talk! 15:16, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why I'm getting antagonistic replies. I certainly didn't ask for such a tone and I don't welcome it. I think my website link would benefit your 'Reception' box as much as any other site that features there. Let me ask you - what makes them more valuable than mine? When you reply, please don't snap at me. I don't deserve that. Dvdfever (talk) 19:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Every other single source currently cited in the reception section has passed Wikipedia's critera for notability, and they are all considered authoritative critics for video games. That's what makes them more valuable than your website. If you were a noted game developer, critic, or expert in the field, your website and opinion could be of value, but you have provided no evidence of this. Cannolis (talk) 20:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I appreciate you explaining things where your colleague, instead, chose to slam me. I am trying to do right by Wikipedia here, and I am new to attempting to contribute in this way so I appreciate your patience in this. I had a look at that page, but while I've been reviewing for just over 20 years, I can't see where I can provide the evidence of this, nor precisely what you need. Please let me know. Dvdfever (talk) 22:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: It's been explained that this request is a WONTFIX in that we will not add a SPAMLINK to the article on your behalf. Your insistence on reopening this request against consensus is pushing the limits of AGF and is becoming DISRUPTIVE. Please stop now. Thank you! — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 22:44, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you could link to any websites, books, newspapers, some sort of reliable third party source that describes you as a notable reviewer, that would be sufficient. Note that evidence that simply proves you have been reviewing things for >20 years would not be enough - anybody can review anything on their personal website or blog - Wikipedia only collects the viewpoints of the notable or established authorities. Cannolis (talk) 00:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was just thinking about this and wanted to ask if it's enough that someone else has posted a link on Wikipedia which links back to my website, please? This is one such example and there are a number of others. I have not posted any of these myself. Thanks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Reply

 Not done This is not a Semi-protected edit request - Trying to promote your website is likely to result in it being blacklisted - Arjayay (talk) 21:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to promote my website. Please re-read Cannolis' reply, and then my query today. I'm trying to find some understanding about something. Thankyou. Dvdfever (talk) 21:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not enough if someone on Wikipedia has linked to your website; in fact it seems likely any such links should be removed. Huon (talk) 00:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: -- Sam Sing! 00:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2014[edit]

103.242.217.242 (talk) 06:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC) jabal[reply]

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 15:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism from French Left section[edit]

I'm making a couple of changes to the Criticism from the French Left section and putting my edit summary here, not because I think the changes are contentious (I don't think they are) but because the summary is too long to fit in the edit itself. I've changed "reinterpretation" to "interpretation" because "reinterpretation" implies that the ideas in question are new or fringe, neither of which is true. There are many competing schools of thought about the French Revolution, of course, but both Robespierre-as-monster and Marie-Antoinette-as-pawn-of-events are ideas that have been around for a long time and have plenty of supporters. Also, placing the Ubisoft quotations here in this section makes it sound like they were made in response to the PG's criticism, which they weren't, so I've added a note to prevent that impression. Binabik80 (talk) 23:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight on Gender Controversy sectio[edit]

Looking over this section, it includes nearly 800 words on the gender controversy alone. Whereas sections like the Critical Response (567 words) and Gameplay (453 words) are quite smaller. In fact, only the Plot area is larger than the gender controversy section. It seems to me that there was undue weight given to this section, and far to many unnecessary references which have unbalanced the article. While this section is necessary, edits should be made to pull out quotes that are simply opinions of people weighing in on the gender issue. As an example, the Michelle Starr quote can be removed, as she has zero insight into the process of game development and is making a pure statement guided by her subjectivity. It's completely unnecessary for this section to be so large, plenty of references to quotes can be added, but it doesn't have to be the 2nd largest contribution to the page. If I don't receive any sort of follow-up, I'll be pulling out unnecessary references, such as the Michelle Starr quote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tehdef (talk • contribs) 16:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is by no means giving undue weight to criticism. Don't remove sourced and notable criticsm from an article. There is no golden rule for section sizes, so please expand on gameplay and criticial reception if you feel if they're too small. --Soetermans. T / C 20:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We should remember that WP:BALASPS exists, and having so much room dedicated to the controversy of a game imbalances the article from it's original intent. So much so, that this can likely be taken up in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_and_video_games, or the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_representation_in_video_games entries. It is unbalancing the article and we should strive to make sure the article remains true to it's original intent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tehdef (talk • contribs) 15:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The controversy is given too much weight. Opinion pieces are cheap and generate traffic, so everyone has one, but look at the references and it's over within a few days. A lot of it just uses Assassin's Creed as a starting off point to talk about wider issues. I think it's telling that in the actual reception to the game, it was barely mentioned by the reviewers whose job it is to appraise the game, not to speculate about Ubisoft's development pipeline. - hahnchen 20:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 23 February 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. Cúchullain t/c 13:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


– Nomination and support. Using a ':' usually denotes a subtitle and all the other AC games have a ':' in the title for their Wikipedia entries.Relisted -- Calidum 04:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC) Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 00:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No idea, but our entries are using the colons so I just thought it'd help with consistency. An alternate would be remove the colons from Black Flag, Revelations, Liberation, Bloodlines, Brotherhood, etc. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 01:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Even if certain primary-source sites use the non-colon format, it makes sense to maintain consistency with the other articles on games in the series (as mentioned above). The AC Wiki also uses the titles "Assassin's Creed:Unity" and "Assassin's Creed:Rogue" (noticeably with a colon). --Jasca Ducato (talk) 02:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I don't think it is appropriate to change the game's name only to maintain consistency. Assassin's Creed Unity" is its actual name, as well as its commonly used name as it is well-recognized by critics and the publisher itself. AdrianGamer (talk) 15:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per AdrianGamer. Neither the official sites, nor common sources, generally include a colon. And this is not just a WP:PUNCTUATION issue, or a question of house style, because it changes the flow and sense of what the title means.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pics or it didn't happen. Evidence? We don't always use official titles. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 00:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No we don't, you're quite right there. But when the official title and the common name appear to coincide (unless you have evidence to the contrary?) it seems prudent to use that common/official name.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then Black Flag, Bloodlines, Brotherhood, Revelations, Liberation might be in line for a RM. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 19:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd just like to remind everyone of the existence of Star Trek Into Darkness. Make sure you don't get a mini-repeat of that ridiculous waste of time. Peter Isotalo 23:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not like "Star Trek Into Darkness", as we can refer to the games as "Unity" and "Rogue", or "Unity (Assassin's Creed)" and "Rogue (Assassin's Creed)" but not Star Trek. The Unity/Rogue components of the name are clearly independant of the series title. And unlike Star Trek, these are not grammatically correct. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Assassin's Creed Unity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:01, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which Statue of Liberty?[edit]

The article refers to accurate modeling of several Parisian monuments, including the Statue of Liberty and the Eiffel Tower. Since these did not exist at the time when AC Unity is primarily set, I assume they're presented via the time travel feature of the game. So the question is whether the Statue of Liberty link should properly go to the main page (as at present) or to the Parisian replicas page. The cited references are silent on the matter. I don't have access to the game itself, so I can't determine which statue is actually used in it. Perhaps someone can check into it. Thnx! jxm (talk) 17:02, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article should link to the main Statue of Liberty page. Although the mission takes place in France, it does so during the time that the Statue of Liberty is being constructed (which took place in France). --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 13:50, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Assassin%27s_Creed_Unity&oldid=1205421052"