Talk:Infestation: Survivor Stories

Reception

Shouldn't there be something about the big controversy going on right now? Such as the whole "Day Z Scam" petitioning and the thousands of complaints about their random banning?Apophis775 (talk) 22:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I support this move. Here's a possibly helpful article, if it can be verified as true. http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/the-war-z/1226980p1.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.106.61.141 (talk) 05:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Concern

This article reads like a sales pamphlet. Needs a major rewrite. sts 22:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

It was not created by the producer and programmer of Big Rigs. Sergey created an engine, which was licensed by the devs of Big Rig. He had zero input into the actual game. He also worked on Gears of War. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.59.2.166 (talk) 18:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

this article about Stellar Stone says it clearly, Titov was co-owner of the company, so he was a producer for the game. see Stellar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.51.184.173 (talk) 19:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Big Rigs This article about Big Rigs, as well as the one you posted, says what I said - Sergey created and licensed the engine. What I didn't say was what your article said - that he created the engine in exchange for a large portion of ownership of the company (and any profits). The Big Rigs section, under development, explains that he was incorrectly listed as developer for Big Rigs because of his proprietary engine. He did not produce the game or have any input other than developing an engine. But if that makes him responsible for the mess that is Big Rigs, than is Unity responsible for all of the crap games developed on their great engine? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.203.83.134 (talk) 20:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I added Sergey Titov with the title of Producer per the information presented in the Venturebeat article where he was specifically named as the producer. Aneah|talk _to ^me 16:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Deletion requested

I tagged this for AfD due to the fact that I couldn't find 5 websites that make mention of the subject of this article. When trying to source the article, all I get is rehash of the PR piece we find here. I could have gutted the article, but since NOTHING is sourced, I did the AfD request instead. It is simply not notable yet. If others can find legitimate references to this item without the sales hype, then upgrade the article with citations and possibly avoid the deletion. (It's not the kind of article I like to edit anyway.) Good luck. GenQuest (talk) 14:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

What? I'm not a frequent Wikipedia contributor, but I don't understand at all why this article would be deleted. This is a future game title, I really don't know what more to say past that. It's a game, games have articles. Period. And that nonsense about not finding references to it? How 'bout googling "war z" and clicking "News". You'll find dozens of news articles about the game and its development. 70.72.170.247 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:09, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

This is not the forum for AfD. That issue is being decided here. Feel free to add your input there. GenQuest (talk) 18:28, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Contradiction

In the final section the page reads, "'typical alpha bugs' of a beta release." This makes no sense because alphas and betas are different points in a software development life cycle. I get the confusion because everyone in recent years has taken on the wrong idea that any yet-to-be-released software is a beta, it is still not proper terminology. All official sources say this game is in alpha, not beta, including the sentence referenced. I will change the sentence if there are no arguments, but the sidebar which lists the game as "beta" needs to be changed too, but I am an inexperienced editor and do not know how. --68.39.25.109 (talk) 17:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality

I have added a neutrality flag to the article. The most suspicious claim I've seen was: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_War_Z&diff=528765879&oldid=528765672

I'm not sure of this, but judging from the comment and that it was made by an unconfirmed editor "Dickcheese123" and was removed by an IP address belonging to Shaw Cable in Canada, I'm not sure that is NPOV. Possibly novice editors or vandals? Sure. Whether good intent or not, I think that the article should be locked down for editing only by registered users, due to possible NPOV. Aneah|talk _to ^me 16:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Considering some of these current complaints going on in the Steam and Reddit communities, I believe that this article's neutrality is in jeopardy.

Attys (talk) 07:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I added some sources of complaints, among them at least meta critic should be considered legit source. Maybe TotalBiscuit too but he's not that big outside of the gaming community. That petition should be ok since it's got decent amount of signatures. New to wiki editing so don't know if I'm doing a good job or horribly violated tons of rules 50.99.131.84 (talk) 08:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I added some sources yesterday in the reference section that can be used to expand the article. I'll list them here as well so people can use them: destructoid article, joystiq article, kotaku article, business wire article, ign article, Eurogamer article, gamespy article. The1337gamer (talk) 09:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

gnn, i just started switching some or the references when you started editing :p is there some way of avoiding this in the future? 50.99.131.84 (talk) 09:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Also I do believe TotalBiscuit's video review is acceptable source. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Rs#Self-published_and_questionable_sources read the section about established expert in revelant field 50.99.131.84 (talk) 09:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not a reliable source. It's just one man's opinion, I could go make a video and self-publish it on YouTube, would my opinion matter? I understand TB is a popular voice and well known but that doesn't make the source reliable. If you read the section you linked properly and this section: Wikipedia:SPS#Self-published_sources, you will see that, selfpublished media is usually not an acceptable source. In this case, it isn't. I recommend using the sources I've provided, they are third-party and generally considered reliable publications. The1337gamer (talk) 10:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with TotalBiscuit or his methodology, etc. However, in reading the Self-published information that both have cited. To quote the page that has been referenced: "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. " I think that the key here to qualify TotalBiscuits information is whether or not he has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Aneah|talk _to ^me 16:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

According to your logic, every reference can just be a guy's opinion since everything has to be written by someone. John Bain has been working in the video game journalism industry for 7 years. His work is regularly referenced by third party publications. He is regularly contacted by developers to review their product. (references in his wikipedia page) and according to Wikipedia:SPS#Self-published_sources, this is acceptable. Not that I'd use it as reference anymore since lots of people like you would consider it weak. Gonna wait for gamespot or ign reviews.50.99.131.84 (talk) 12:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

It's clearly a developing story, and I'm seeing tons of negative reaction. Give it a few more days and I'm sure more articles will be written, and we can fill in more details. I'm see talk in forums of mass refunds and potential lawsuits, all kinds of stuff, but we can bide our time until more is written. And the sources The1337gamer listed above are pretty good already; use some of those to add more information. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 12:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

VentureBeat says Valve pulled the game and is offering refunds now, with quote from Valve's Lombardi: http://venturebeat.com/2012/12/19/steam-pulls-the-war-z-from-its-store-over-fan-backlash/ -- ferret (talk) 01:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

MMO?

I may have been a bit too quick in removing it from the sidebar, but this game can, in my opinion, not really be classified as an "mmo". If you also read the wiki page about MMO's, you can see that War Z is not like that. Several sources do name it as one, but I don't feel these as credible. Up to 100 (currently even 50) players per server is about as much as a regular FPS-game, whereas normal MMO's like EverQuest and World of Warcraft range into the thousands per server.

I believe it should be removed.--XSlicer (talk) 22:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you. Plenty of non-MMO titles have servers greater than 50 players. The1337gamer (talk) 23:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe that we have a choice as to what to term the classification. The company itself considers the game an MMO. Whether it warrants it or not, that is the source of the description. The MMO status can also probably be reported from other third-party, reliable resources which label it the game an MMO. Aneah|talk _to ^me 16:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Well yes, that is the concern. The developers have labelled the game an MMO when it clearly is not; then the media reports it as an MMO even though they haven't tried the game. Plenty of evidence has already been provided that the developers are frauds and have falsely advertised their game. Personally, I think that it is incorrect for the game to be currently labelled an MMO, but it may have to be put back up if the media continue to refer to it as one. The1337gamer (talk) 17:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

As editors, our opinion as to what defines something as being one classification or another, is not relevant. We are here providing encyclopedic content based on reliable sources. There isn't a reliable source (e.g. dictionary) which defines what encompasses an MMO. The closest thing we have for definition is a Wikipedia article regarding MMOs. The definition of sorts contained within the lead of the article stipulates "is a multiplayer video game which is capable of supporting hundreds or thousands of players simultaneously. " It does not specify whether those hundreds or thousands are per server or not. If it specified player populations per server, then as games fade away and servers are not consolidated, then it could potentially change the status of the game from one type to another. Since the game manufacturer and corresponding press label it an MMO, we have no choice but to consider it as such. Aneah|talk _to ^me 17:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

title

Is the official name for the game "The War Z" or just "War Z"? Sera404 (talk) 05:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The War Z. The1337gamer (talk) 09:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Similarity to DayZ

Is this worth noting in the article? The creator of DayZ, Dean Hall, went off on one about The War Z cloning a number of features of DayZ, not to mention they have similar names. (http://www.reddit.com/r/dayz/comments/16mq1u/before_the_holidays_rocket_asked_for_harder_and/c7xy7id) 193.132.145.152 (talk) 12:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we should include it in the body of the article, but we could include a See Also link to Day Z? I think it's relevant to anyone reading this article. Samwalton9 (talk) 14:55, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

More Controversy

There's no notice about it, but the game source code have leaked and it's present on the Rage Zone Forums

Stalinist revision of history - title

Someone's gone out of their way to recon the former title "The War Z" in almost all of it's instances, changing it to it's current title "Infected:Survivor Stories". Seems like maybe a 'fan' of the game is a little desperate to put some distance between the current game and the famously negative reputation the title "The War Z" has. I'm curious, but shouldn't the original title be kept for reference purposes rather than pretending like it never existed? I mean, to even go as far as changing direct quotes of reviewers to use the current title is pretty dodgy. (Booyaka9K) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.103.46 (talk) 12:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

There is the note in the infobox saying "Formally: The War Z". That and the fact that almost all of the sources in the article refer to it as "The War Z" should be more than enough to let people know that this is still the same pile of crap in a different wrapper! 12:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PantherLeapord (talk • contribs)

The War Z also redirects here. From what I can tell, the mass search and replace has been corrected and all the old references were fixed so that they still had their correct titles with the old name. -- ferret (talk) 12:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I've tried to fix all of those instances where appropriate, such as when the game was specifically being discussed when it was called The War Z. Name changes aren't retroactive, especially when reliable sources don't reflect that change. - SudoGhost 13:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

"F10" Controversy

May i know why my paragraph was reverted ? "unreliabel (sic) sources" is obviously not the real reason, as the sources provided are all official posts from the developers of the game. @ ferret, regarding https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Infestation:_Survivor_Stories&diff=629876387&oldid=629869381 -- lucas (talk) 20:18, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Several reasons. It contains some original research. It contains unreliable sources (Forums are not reliable sources, and the developer would be a primary source besides). It contains statements not backed by the sources, regardless of reliability. Although the poll option indicating to keep F10 as-is had the most votes, the text claimed that the result was that it should be changed and this was not honored, which contradicts the poll percentages. This is where the OR comes in, adding two incompatible options (Change F10 or remove F10) and claiming they represent a majority. And finally, it's just not a notable controversy, as it hasn't been covered by any reliable secondary sources. -- ferret (talk) 19:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Infestation: Survivor Stories. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130115032753/http://uk.gamespot.com/news/the-war-z-producer-calls-campers-fgots-6398729 to http://uk.gamespot.com/news/the-war-z-producer-calls-campers-fgots-6398729

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) 18:49, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Infestation: Survivor Stories. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130121010848/http://uk.gamespot.com/the-war-z/reviews/the-war-z-review-6402496/ to http://uk.gamespot.com/the-war-z/reviews/the-war-z-review-6402496/

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) 02:45, 12 January 2018 (UTC)