Talk:Mass Effect/Archive 1

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

Race Descriptions

Is there a reason that there isn't more detailed information about the races of Mass Effect included in the article? From Revelation, there is plenty of detail that hasn't been included in the article. For example, the Asari are asexual in nature, and were the first interstellar race to discover the Citadel.

If there is some citation hindrance as to why this information hasn't been referenced, I'll refrain from doing so. Otherwise, I think it would be good to include more information on the different species. Chavi904 00:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not very knowledgeable about Wikipedia rules and nuances, but I don't see why you shouldn't add information as long as it's cited. Revelations, though I haven't read it, seems like the best source of official "lore" information right now since the BioWare website's information on the races is brief at best (and most of the current Wiki descriptions seem like they're lifted directly from the official pages). For example, the official website doesn't even mention the Hanar in text as far as I can tell, but they've released official screenshots featuring them, and apparently they're featured in the book, as well. I'm assuming there's a lot more information about the Mass Effect universe in the book than there is online, and most of it should be accurate since the author is also writing the script for the game. Kevin Kubo 03:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that the Races and Gameplay sections should be massively cropped, if not now then after Mass Effect's release, to keep the article Encyclopaediac. I don't mean necessarily deleting them outright, but just shortening the descriptions and trying to keep it brief. Is the race history really necessary? For that matter, is the Timeline even relevant in an Encyclopaedic article? Maybe if the Encyclopaedia were dedicated to video gaming or Mass Effect, I'd say they're possibly necessary. (If it were gaming in general, I'd definitely say NO even so.) Leave a link to a source of informationn maybe at the start of their respective (sub-)sections, but I say it definitely needs cropping. An Encyclopaedia, IMO, should be written for the "idiot savant," with just enough detail for them to get an idea of what's going on in the game, but not a description of the entire universe. Ong elvin 16:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

Few pictures added complimenting the article beside it. Killah94 21:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup Required

I agree with the cleanup tag. Unfortunately, there is a dearth of information concerning the game and there are few known facts outside of what is currently in the article. It may be some time before the article is up to par; I particularly think the brief listing of characters, vehicles, and classes at this stage is unecessary given the information is not sourced and is likely subject to change before closer to release. FDeziel 17:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I think a few pictures need to be added too

Soldier Classes

With the latest EGM magazine out, I think they three classes are now: Soldier, Biotic, and Tech.

Above comment was added by User:204.57.104.6 here [1] Nil Einne (talk) 20:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Release Date

The release date, unless IGN hasn't updated their website, is still "to be announced" for the US, but will be in 2006. January 12, 2007 is another release date, but I don't know if it's for Japan or Europe.

Websites that sell games, like Gamestop or Bestbuy, will amlost always put down release dates, even if it hasn't been announced. This way more people preorder. However, if you look closely, they will generally put down somewhere on the page that the release date has yet to be announced.

Agreed. Removed the release date and put TBA in its place. I have seen speculation for both 2006 and 2007, but no commitment from Bioware as to a specificy day, month, or fiscal quarter. FDeziel 14:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


Hey, uh, not that I'm not hoping for an April 3, 2007 release date (and which I've seen in quite a few places), when was this confirmed? DarthJango42 00:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It was not, no release date has been confirmed as of now. Only first half of 2007. Igfi 03:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

What's up with the May 22nd release date on the right side? I've been hearing that date around for a bit, as well as the 18th of the same month.

It's just a rumor, pay no attention. Igfi 21:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

http://www.amazon.com/Mass-Effect-Collectors-New-Title/dp/0761556230/sr=1-4/qid=1172471729/ref=sr_1_4/102-5647441-7002551?ie=UTF8&s=books I know amazon isn't very reliable but the strategy guide dates are usually right and are usually within a week of a game's release. DarthJango42 06:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been on the Mass Effect forums http://www.masseffect.com , and they state that the strategy guides are the publisher's estimate. The Bioware developers keep on hammering away at the point that no release date is correct apart from the one that Bioware will eventually officially state themselves. Reason that Mass Effect has no release date as of yet is because Bioware don't want to corner themselves into a set date and if something needs changing, the date will be delayed. Bioware are trying to deliver a high quality product "when it's ready" basically, which they aim to be within the first half of 2007. They have said that the official release date should be announced when the game goes gold which is usually 4-6 weeks before release. Vigilo 15:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Q2 in the Fiscal Year ends March 31, should the release date be changed to Q3? 86.146.174.133 23:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I've changed it to Q3 due to Q2 2007 having ended recently. If a TBA would be more appropriate, then I apologize.

Changed date to TBA. looking at the mass effect site it still says TBA so i think it should stay TBA here. FuzionZero 16:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Source on Krogan, Salarians, and Volus.

I have been keeping up with Mass Effect quite frequently, and I haven't seen those mini descriptions anywhere. What is the source on the description of the mentioned races?

The source is the latest Game Informer issue. It's in the short preview on Mass Effect which basically talks about it's X06 appearance combined with the information on Shepard, Ashley Williams, and the races. 151.196.48.179 20:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I can give more specific info on this. it was in issue 164, december 2006. on pages 98 -99. at the bottum is a list of all the races, Commander Shepard, and Gunnery chief Ashley Williams. {Tuckerthewise 19:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)}

Space travel

hey how does the space travel work? do you like pick witch planet you want to go to on a menu or do you get to fly your ship around manually? i realy hope it is manual and has a menu for the people who don't want to do all the flying. but i have always wanted to play a game where you can freely fly a ship all over an outer space game world. :) Tuckerthewise 04:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

That's an interesting idea. It could also lead to the discovery of new planets or even space pirate bases. There could also be a feature that allows you to say, upgrade the Normandy's scanner to increase scanning distance. --Averross 15:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Based on all the videos I've seen (I've seen all the publicly released ones) and the handful of articles I've read, space travel is menu-based: it looks as though you just use one of the analog sticks to flip through a galactic map, select a solar systems, select a planet or other area of interest, and then you travel there immediately. (I'm assuming this is fairly close to the real thing since there is a note preceding the longer videos that states everything is in game, and button assignments pop up at the bottom of the screen, as they would in an actual gameplay situation.) Though you can wander the interior of the Normandy (like you could wander the Ebon Hawk in KoTOR), I don't believe they have mentioned any ability to control the ship manually. (Apparently the Normandy is huge, unlike the aforementioned Ebon Hawk, and new screenshots show that the Normandy is manned by numerous non-party NPCs, possibly as an implication that, even though the player is an exceptionally talented soldier, piloting the ship is much too complicated for him/her.) No BioWare games have featured direct control of ship-based travel yet, but Jade Empire featured an optional action-based minigame involving the character's flying ship (however a similar minigame is not likely in the much more serious Mass Effect universe).Kevin Kubo 22:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed you are officially not allowed to control the ship, at the game's forum the devs have said it many times. Igfi 03:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


Surgestion: change of page name

I would surgest changing the name of the page or redirecting from or to "Mass Effect (game)" in order to make it easier to find and tell the difference between this and mass effect.

Jlclarke 22:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so, I'm fairly certain the majority of people looking for Mass Effect won't be looking for the medical term. It would probably be a better step to have mass effect become "Mass effect (medical)"(or whatever). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Igfi (talk • contribs) 22:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC).
The previous person makes a good point. I don't totally understand how "main" pages are generally determined on this site, but I have a feeling not many people want the medical mass effect, especially considering it's still just a stub.Kevin Kubo 04:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

remove the box art

can someone remove that disgusting fan box art, you shouldnt upload fan art to wikipedia, if it doesnt have a box art yet then just leave it blank.. no need to put a pic up for the sake of it, especially that awful rendering. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.194.7.253 (talk • contribs).

  • According to the image attribution at Image:Masseffect.jpg, this is the official box art. --bd_ 22:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Indeed it is the real box art, look here at the Mass Effect forums:

http://masseffect.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=544511&forum=104

Igfi 20:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me like the saturation of the current image is really high. The green and red portions seem to glow, as if someone just clicked on the auto levels feature in Photoshop and all the black and blue tricked it into overcompensating on the saturation. Is there another official version somewhere that has better color levels/saturation? Kevin Kubo 05:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
From the official website:

http://masseffect.bioware.com/_commonext/images/me/cover/masseffect_box_cover_01_532x760.jpg

Igfi 06:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

footnotes/references/notes

this page is in serious work on making the footnotes consistently formatted. Chensiyuan 10:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Image removal

I removed a number of images from this article, for several reasons. To quote from Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy:

  • The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible. Low-resolution images should be used instead of high-resolution images (especially images that are so high-resolution that they could be used for piracy). This includes the original in the Image: namespace. Do not use multiple images or media clips if one will serve the purpose adequately.
  • The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose.

The images in question failed both of these two criteria.

  • Fair use imagery was used to an excessive degree, in that multiple images were used when a single one would have sufficed. I'm looking at the individual characters' portraits, here, and I'll be removing them in a moment in accordance with the above policy.
  • The images in question did not contribute significantly to the article, and did not serve to identify specific, relevant points that were in need of such illustration. Some specific examples:

-- Daveydweeb (chat/review!) 09:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Exclusive videos

I wanted to submit a video that has some of the press (1UP.com) talking about the game as well as some developer interviews and behind-the-scenes footage. http://gamevideos.com/video/id/3929.

Thanks!

-Jay —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jayfresh006 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

PC

Has Bioware mentioned anything about Mass Effect going to PC or exclusive for the 360? --Rokasomee 03:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Xbox 360 exclusive. Igfi 00:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
It was stated that there *might* be future work on a PC version, but for now they are only working on a 360 version. §ilnadmy§ 81.19.57.194 08:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, if this does prove to be Xbox only, the planned trilogy just might be the reason I buy my first new console since the Megadrive. It'll be a shrewd move by Microsoft if they can keep this Xbox exclusive, they could reel in all of Bioware's fans. --JamesTheNumberless 09:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

it will likely go onto PC - probably after some time though, perhaps ~6 months. microsoft is emphasising xbox 360 and PC gaming concurrently, and bioware have ported their games in the past to PC (kotor etc.), so this is a logical conclusion. however, there will certainly be a delay as they would want to maintain xbox 360 exclusivity for some time.

also, there has been some mention of mass effect on PC in PC Gamer UK - http://www.joystiq.com/2006/10/22/mass-effect-rumored-for-the-pc/. ==rambo

Minor Edit

just to let you know

"The game promises extensive character generation. The player can make Shepard male or female, and one of six character classes, three of which were revealed at IGN"

at means a place or time (ie: "at school" or "at 5pm". on means a day (ie: "on thursday". just thought id clarify that as someone changed "at" to "on" - FuzionZero 16:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

IGN is a website and I don't know how it works wherever you're from but in my experience people always say on in this context. e.g. You would say You can see my video at www.youtube.come but you wouldn't say Come and see this video at youtube, you would say Come and see this video on youtube. You wouldn't say, there's a great article at the bbc's website today you would say There's a great article on the bbc's website today. If this is a reference to an article on IGN, you would say on. You wouldn't say I saw a great program at TV last night would you????? Or There was an excellent documentary at Fox last night? No, it would be on - I have only ever heard people refer to websites in the same way as they would to TV channels. --JamesTheNumberless 09:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Digging deeper, a google search for "at bbc.co.uk" returns 74,300 whereas a search for "on bbc.co.uk" returns 392,000 - furthermore the Wikipedia article on bbc.co.uk bbc.co.uk uses on in this context. I am therefore going to revert this to on for consistency (and because, quite frankly, at sounds crude.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JamesTheNumberless (talk • contribs) 09:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

"at" is the correct word to be using. the reason you see "on" so many times is because so many people don't know the correct usage. you get information AT a library or AT ign.com. you sit ON a chair. to say "see this video on youtube.com" makes it sounds you have a video sitting on top of a a thing called a youtube.com

Reference Links

Someone should clean up references and their links. there are several same reference links. It would be better if there was just 1 for each link and all references to that link used the same one. FuzionZero 23:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Release Date Updates

Trip to Gamestop today and the display sections were stocked with Mass Effect "preview" boxes and poster. Sales guy said their computer lists the "in store" date as June 20th. Yeah, I know it's still not official, but I think we're inching closer to the official release. Hopefully there'll be a reliable, independent source announcing the release date soon.

Given the amount of changes and reverts we've had to this page, I'm wondering if it's worth it to create a subsection along the lines of "Release Date Uncertainty," then list something to the effect that X source places the release at Y date, though final confirmation hasn't been given by the publisher? Jodyw1 04:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I dont think its worth cluttering up the page with some short statement saying we dont know when its release date is. even if we do people that think they know what the exact date i will just get rid of that section. its pointless. i bet the release day will be announced soon anyways and i noticed the edits put in a message that only shows in the edit page and history that says its not known yet so hopefully that will stop some people. i think we are fine right now, plenty of people willingly revert the date to TBA anyways so i think its fine right now FuzionZero 18:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

www.digg.com under the gaming section has listed a link to an article stating that MASS EFFECT has been scheduled for a SEPTEMBER release date in hopes to avoid the summer drought, putting in a head to head release with BLUE DRAGON. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.192.16.247 (talk • contribs)

The anon IP may be refering to this. I would have changed the article myself, but I didn't see any statement on the official bioware site and the noinclude on the article says to only change if it's from bioware itself. I haven't seen any links to a microsoft site or anything else to confirm it either. -Aknorals 22:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

According to the Prima Games official site the guide is listed as being available for physical release on May 22nd. The download version for some reason is listed as May 11th. I have the link here [2]. -Ao7hin 20:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

And now Amazon.com is saying it will be out on June 19th. Sigh. This is ridiculous. Bioware needs to just make a statement setting a firm date.

THERE IS NO RELEASE DATE. Bioware states this nearly every day on their site for Mass Effect because people are always asking for it.

No release date

THERE IS NO RELEASE DATE. Bioware states this nearly every day, and they make it very clear on their site that there is no release date or ESRB rating that is finalized yet. I admit it is quite irritating, but that's the way it is.

Just have a look for yourselves: http://masseffect.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=559883&forum=104 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.10.46.254 (talk) 20:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

ESRB Rating

At the ESRB website they have relased the rating as M for Mature. Just letting you all know!


It's not final, just an educated guess.

And not to put too fine a point on it, Bioware has (repeatedly) stated that rating is not final nor official. For like the tenth time, neither the release date, ESRB rating, or the game's favorite color for that matter, is set in stone and Bioware has gone to large, painfully public lengths to make this clear. Which is to say, Bioware has taken a firm, definitive, uber official position that there is no firm, definitive, uber official rating or release date.

Pegi also has a rating -> http://www.pegi.info/en/index/global_id/23/?searchString=mass+effect&submit=Search

Jlclarke 22:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


I removed the PEGI and BBFC rating because neither of them have yet given a rating to Mass Effect, I did check both sites for Mass Effect and it didn't turn up. - Guest

Could someone tell me why it's rated M? Does it have sexual themes or something? Thanks in advance for answering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.114.14.21 (talk) 16:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Voice Actor Info?

Anyone out there got any information on who the voice talent is for this game. There was one scene in the X06 demo trailer there that has me wondering.--Enigmatick 16:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Go to www.masseffect.bioware.com and check the forums, or post that question there. But you need a profile to post. DaGrandPuba 03:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The only person confirmed was Keith David, who played Anderson in a later video. Igfi 01:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

September 3? Someone change that! Nevermind, I did.

There is not a release date, how clear does it have to be for people to understand? Ihave changed it to TBA 2007 please leave it that way until there is one, all this guessing at release dates is rubbish. DaGrandPuba 01:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)dagrandpuba

Someone should add to the parenthetical about not putting up a release date unless it's from Bioware, that they should also read the discussion page as to why. Another, "I read it on (this time it was IGN) it was coming out on such and such a date" edit was made. Apparently the whole, don't put it up unless Bioware has officially made it clear when they are releasing it, memo hasn't gotten through to everyone.

Cleanup

I organised the alien races section into alphabetical order and rewrote the sections on Krogans and Asari. I Wrote a section for humans and made minor edits to the other races sections. I added images to sections: Asari, Krogan, Human, Geth, Quarians and Turians. I left the cleanup tag there because alot of the race sections are poorly referenced. I added a small amount of unreferenced material from the Mass Effect game site to the Time Line, - heck none of the rest of it is referenced :p - So yeah.Revoranii 18:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Page move

I could of swore yesterday that the this page and the mass effect medical article were the other way round. It now seems they have switched places, anyone know what happened? SkorponokX 14:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It's happened before. I'm not sure if it's because the person editing the medical article accidently did something or the default search result for "mass effect" got switched but it's not the first time it's happened. - Keeper

Mass Edit Envy

I shouldn't have to make this an issue but before anyone removes entire sections of content from an article, they need to seek consensus or at least discussion with other contributors first. The only thing that will happen otherwise, is that the Undo button will get a workout and an edit war that will waste everyone's time. - Keeper

Keeper, there was nothing wrong with those edits. Separate pages were created for each of the sections removed and their content was pasted pretty much verbatim. Unless you have a good argument otherwise, I think you need to undo your changes.Jodyw1 06:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Well thank you for your thoughts Jody. As I haven't seen any real or good arguements as to why things should be reverted and/or deleted back to the poorly rewritten way they were before I undid them, I think I'll let them be the way they have been for weeks and no one had a problem with before.

The edits butchered the article and the new material was poorly written. Ending a sentence with, "...and the like." is not encyclopedic nor were any sources cited for the new material which makes it (drumroll please), ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Which, if I recall correctly, is not acceptable for a Wikipedia article. Don't try and tell me what to do and I won't have to explain that while everyone can write, not everyone should. M'kay? - Keeper

Someone woke up on the wrong side of Life this morning.
Creating the sub-pages for the various sections was actually a good idea. It left the main article shorter and easier to read, with people then able to drill on to more specific discussions of each sub-topic. Given that this article is going to grow as we get closer to, and then again after, the November launch, it makes a great deal of sense to create the spaces for more detailed discussion along side the briefer, main overview.
Given the changes originally made, you could have taken your considerable, towering and no doubt impressive skills as a writer and, say, cleaned up the changes, and / or made a note here on the talk page about how to further improve the article, pointing out the original research or lack of citation, and asking for help finding cites. Or you could have been a dick. Interesting what you chose.Jodyw1 15:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, name calling. Thank you Jody, that certainly makes me want to read through the waste of space your notes are. Or really not. Either way, the fact is no one asked you to determine what is or isn't too long, nor was anyone complaining about length till the self appointed (or is that self annointed?) Wiki Police showed up and decided this particular game article needed to be read it's Wiki rights. "You have the right to be judged by the self described noob, to be banal and lacking in detail, to be trashed by those that can't write anything above a third grade level..."

I fail to see WHY this article needs to be a certain length. We aren't killing trees to make the entry, Wiki can afford the space, and aside from your inane preoccupations with aethestic issues there isn't a legitimate reason to change what others spent a lot of time writing and finessing. Just because someone can make an article shorter (and follow "proper guidelines") doesn't mean they absolutely have to or even should. And it doesn't change the fact that bad writing is still bad writing, regardless of how short a time we are forced to endure it. I, for one, would rather read a longer, more in depth, informative article that is good to excellent than a brief, uninformative summary that is bad to piss poor in quality. As you of all people should know, smaller is not better.

So buckaroo, go find an article that actually is far too long (I'd start with anything related to Star Wars, PS2/3 games, and your own self agrandizing page) and waste their time with pointless editing/policy masturbation. Bit of advice, might want to elevate the level of discussion by avoiding pejorative use of phallic imagery. Obviously it's a preoccupation for you but this isn't the place for that. - The Keeper

WP:CIVIL ... I appreciate ComicazieSeth's boldness in his edits -- the article was/is too long -- but its obvious there is not yet consensus for these changes, so lets discuss..? I think creating a bunch of stubs for each of the races in the game doesn't improve the overall readability for the article set. Perhaps consider moving the bulk of the race information to a single Races of Mass Effect page. cheers, --guyzero | talk 16:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Now see, there's a suggestion. That's actually a good one and meets some of the needs and concerns presented here. Anyone else in favor or opposed to creating a races sub-page? Do we just limit it there for now or should any more such general pages be created? Jodyw1 19:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Firefox says this article is 27KB. The rule of thumb at Wikipedia:Article_size says articles under 30KB should not be divided with "length alone" as the justification. There is no rush to split up this page anyway. That said, if someone else doesn't have a chance to sandbox a Races of Mass Effect page to help discussion, I'll do it as soon as I have a chance. cheers, --guyzero | talk 20:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Guyzero, sounds like a plan. We're going to hit the 30KB guide sometime in August. The sandbox page will help with the conversation about what do later on when this article is stuffed with info.Jodyw1 22:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Sigh, why must everything in this world either be nitpicked to death or debated as the greatest philosophical matter of the ages? It's a video game article. Isn't their some political article you could be making worse right now? - The Keeper

Guyzero, the ME Races page looks like it will work from your quick mock-up. What if you push the guidebox over to the right?Jodyw1 00:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a bit of effort has already gone into Alien_Races_in_Mass_Effect and the relevant spin off pages, and it all just needs cleanup, along with this page. cheers, --guyzero | talk 00:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Cool! Looks good. But that does bring us right back to, at the least, streamlining the races info on the main page. Jodyw1 00:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

As has been pointed out, there is not enough information (yet) to necessitate a secondary article. And yes, when the game comes out in November and the flood of information comes rolling in, THEN it will probably require a secondary article along the line of, "Mass Effect Universe" or something to that effect (no pun intended) in the vein of Star Wars or Star Trek. As it stands, the article is informative and not unnecessarily large and does not require overzealous editing/relocation of information.

And on a personal note, if I get hot and bothered it's that I dislike misguided presumption in the form of sloppy, uninspired edits that don't improve the article and are then justified by using the loosest interpretation of policy that can be arrived at. Wikipedia shouldn't be lawyer games or edit wars and other egocentric nonsense that I see on here all the time (check out the debate on the spelling for the word "Aluminum" in it's article, it will blow your mind). It is not a democracy, to be sure, but it should have consensus by majority. I apologize for my glib, rude remarks and will try to remember that everyone has a right to edit...whether I like it or not. - The Keeper

(P.S. Life and I aren't speaking to each other right now, tragic really. But everything ends in tears...or lots of drinking, whichever comes first.)

Hanar Question

I recall seeing pictures (can't remember where, probably Mass Effect/Bioware's main site) of the jellyfish race, the hanar but no one has put an image in the article. Copyright issues possibly? Or no one has gotten around to it yet? Just curious. - The Keeper

Added a picture of the Hanar. --ComicazieSeth 03:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The geth

Shouldn't all references to the geth be capitalised seeing as the word itself is a pronoun? 'Geth' is the name of their race, so really it should be.

We covered this above, anon. Basically, the consensus was to use the grammatical conceits of Bioware for the article. They lowercase everything so we should too. As that is more or less okay under the Wiki guidelines, it's the direction the article is going in.Jodyw1 04:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Reapers

The section on the Reapers seems to have been novelised. Request someone makes it more appropriate for Wikipedia standards.

I don't remember the Reapers being mentioned in the book or the website. Unless a valid source is given I think it should be deleted in the coming days. -Nintendonien 02:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It's gone for both of the above reasons. If there is no source, then it's original research and (more importantly) the writing style had a florid novel quality about it that doesn't fit the rest of the article. IF a source (preferably from Bioware itself) can be found and the writing can be made more "encyclopedic", great. - The Keeper

I can find no official mention of reapers from Bioware, but there is a forum post discussing them on Bioware's website. [3] --Asklepios 00:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Alien Races page

I realize it's no longer in this article and was given it's own page (not that it really needed one at this stage), but the Mass Effect Alien Races page needs some clean-up. I don't really want to tag it if I can just bring it up here and someone else can fix the article. Offhand, it probably needs to be alphabetical (as it was when it was part of the main page) and the whole, on the council, not on council thing makes the article look choppy. A seperate section stating who is and isn't on the council and related history would look better. KeeperOTD 15:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, I cut out the species info from the current article, because I saw that there was already a page for that and it repeated what the main article already had. I didn't realise there was a whole discussion about it here. At the time I too noticed the sloppyness of the current article. I think I'll have a stab at it now; alphabetical seems the best choice as there are no other clear grouping for them. RC Master 14:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Well I've alphabetised the page anyway now. RC Master 14:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Possible Pc version

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6134975.html

Gamespot reported based on a representative response in Bioware website.

"Mass Effect is an Xbox 360-exclusive title. But don't let that dampen your hopes, PC users. Fable and Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic were also announced as Xbox-exclusive games, but were later released for the PC."

Questioned about a possible Pc version during an interview at E32007, Greg Zeschuk replied:

"Well, we've always been a PC games developer. We have quite a track record with PC games. That's all I am saying about it." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.25.41.102 (talk) 18:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind that you can modify Shepard's face, he's not constricted to the one in the screenshots, just so everyone knows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.114.14.21 (talk) 16:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


Inconsistencies with Plot section

Currently the plot section says, "The story revolves around an ancient alien prophecy stating that every fifty thousand years a portal that separates the "normal" universe and a realm beyond opens, spewing out an alien machine race that comes to the galaxy to harvest all sapient organic life, and the time of their return is approaching. " but everywhere else it mentions that the geth were only created 300 years prior. All I've heard is the later, and no source is given for the former. Am I missing something?157.174.221.169 19:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The geth are not the machine race (the geth are humanoid). The plot section looks to be consistent with the official page. plot info geth info kind regards, --guyzero | talk 21:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Unthreaded comments from talk

Perhaps it should be noted on Saren's page that he is half cybernetic/robotic, as clearly shown in screen shots, and as hinted at on the IGN blog post entitled 'Heroes and Villains' http://blogs.ign.com/BioWare_Games/ The novel tells that the artefact Doctor Qian was working on had an affect on him, could this be the reason Saren modified his body? To better interact with and control it, (or perhaps the Geth directly)? Or could it simply be due to an injury? This is speculation though. . .

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.194.162.67 (talk) 01:15:13, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

While a thread in the official forum states that you cannot directly control your party members, several official videos and screen shots show exactly this. For example: In the X06 video the Turian character appears to be under direct control while taking down the Geth Arbiter's shields. Other screen shots show over-the-shoulder views from characters other than Shepard and the 3 character icons at the bottom-left of the screen change to show that character, rather than Shepard, larger and highlighted. Eg. http://uk.media.xbox360.ign.com/media/718/718963/img_3956801.html Later screen shots show a totally different HUD. While it seems all this was just for demonstration purposes and not possible in game, it seems unlikely to me. What say ye?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.194.162.67 (talk) 01:03:26, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

There has been rather a lot of vandalism on the page. I'm cleaning it up, but feel free to get anything I miss. Thanks.


Shouldn't there be some mention of the gameplay (i.e. the dialogue system and combat)?66.211.136.138 18:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Where are you getting that release date from??? SwK 23:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

GameStop.com....there is a more exact date in April and it is speculative when it will arrive (because games have a tendancy to be delayed). User:Lord Hawk16:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The date should probably be removed as Bioware has not said an offical release date and online retailers often guess at dates so that they can sell the product. Rumors have ranged from Q4 2006 to Q2 2007. Bioware commented that it would be released in "Winter" but refused to clarify if that was a Canadian winter or an American winter...

UK release date

I took it of because as of right now its all speculation. If we put up the date of the release from a non offical source (anyone but Bioware or Microsoft) then there would be 10 different dates. FSU Guy 13:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Capitalization of species names

I reverted a series of edits that knocked out the capitalization of the alien species names, i.e. "Krogan" to "krogan." Don't know what was going through the editor's head, but Wiki-style doesn't apply to proper names within an article.Jodyw1 20:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... now this is interesting. There are two different guidelines in Wiki's naming conventions, the first says
"Insofar as there is any consensus among Wikipedia editors about capitalization of common names of species, it is that each WikiProject can decide on its own rules for capitalization. In general, Wikipedia follows academic practice in each group of organisms. For example, ornithological societies have established official lists of common names, and these are almost always capitalized...Birds are always capitalized...Mammals are mostly capitalized. Fishes are mostly in lower case...Reptiles and amphibians are a mixture...Arthropods are mostly in lower case..Plants are often capitalized. "
the second says
"The common name of a group of species, or an individual creature of indeterminate species, is not capitalised. e.g. ferret, mouse, owl, kingfisher, turtle dove, surfperch, rove beetle."
So since the question is going to continue to arise, when it comes to the naming conventions of Mass Effect alien species, what's the consensus policy going to be? Jodyw1 21:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
The novel uses lowercase (human, krogan, etc.) when referring to species. The article should follow the same convention, especially since it doesn't conflict with either rule above. Elwood00 T | C 21:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
The Mass Effect website @ Bioware also does not capitalize species names from the game. ie [4] cheers, --guyzero | talk 22:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but by that same token, articles written about the game, such as those at IGN, do use the standard capitalization conventions. :-) I'm not trying to be difficult. Much like the whole "Release Date" issue where people where changing things left, right and center, this is an issue that will come up, especially since using lowercase words like "krogan" just look wrong.Jodyw1 00:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
You're not suggesting we should follow IGN's policy over Bioware's are you? If Bioware doesn't capitalize, and that's in line with the Wikipedia guidelines, isn't this discussion over? You keep saying "it will continue to come up," but you are the one who re-capitalized. Elwood00 T | C 13:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

If "how it looks" were a criteria in Wikipedia, all pages would be far more homogenous than they currently are (which could be good or bad depending on the retentive nature of the observor), but it isn't a factor. Yes, it looks wrong but that's how Bioware wants the names to look and since it's their fictional Universe, it should be spelled how they want it spelled. This probably requires majority consensus (i.e. vote) but changing source material to suit aesthetic preoccupations is not in the purview of Wikipedia and/or the page editors. - Keeper

And I actually admitted as much in my comment. What Bioware did is a convention for their game which is, more or less, uncommon with standard English usage. Since there is a desire here to use Bioware's conventions, I'd suggest putting a note at the start of the species descriptions that says, opinions to the contrary, the Wiki article is going to adopt Bioware's view. Hopefully that will prevent future needless editing.Jodyw1 20:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

FWIW- Bioware has recently noted that alien races (except for the Proteans) are not to be capitalized. [5] cheers, --guyzero | talk 21:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed novel image

Image was clutter, so I'm queuing it here per Wikipedia's image use policy. - Cyborg Ninja 01:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Critical reception now open

Critical reception section is now up. First of many reviews in. JAF1970 18:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Some mention should be made as to the fact that the review was written before the game was released. SharkD 14:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Minor web tag error

Added the line that solves the weird display of the mass effect general information AnnihilateApocalypse 15:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

EA Takeover

I heard today that Bioware was taken over by EA today and I researched it a bit and it seems to be true. So just seeing if anyone who knows about this can add some info. 59.154.24.147 08:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

According to the BioWare article, the acquisition occurs in 2008, after the 360 release of ME. cheers, --guyzero | talk 22:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, OK thanks for clearing that up for me =) 59.154.24.147 06:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Action RPG or just RPG?

Do you all think that Mass Effect is an action RPG or just an RPG? I am having a hard time thinking it is like Diablo II when the video gameplay content has so many choices of PC - NPC interaction. Note that Knights of the Old Republic is simply labled a RPG. Tony Pacheco 17:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

ps. My first wiki edit ever. Please be gentle.

Hi! Welcome to Wikipedia. =) I agree this is debatable .. event the action rpg article points out that the definition is sometimes blurry. The safe bet would be to go with the definition the reliable sources are applying to this particular game. I flipped through a few from the article (IGN, xbox.com, the official masseffect faq at bioware.com) and they either define the game as an action-rpg or no definition is provided. We might keep an eye on reviews to see if they say different than the action-rpg moniker that has so far been applied by bioware/microsoft marketing (which may in fact be less than accurate, as you suggest). cheers, --guyzero | talk 21:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Intellectual Property

Who owns the Mass Effect IP, Microsoft or BioWare? 204.69.40.7 18:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Electronic Arts will in January if the deal is allowed by the gov't. But Bioware owns it now. JAF1970 18:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

but all distribution rights of the game belongs to Microsoft Markthemac 21:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

North American release date

Am I the only one who finds it odd that the North American release date is the only one that's unsourced? I'm sure that, given how close the supposed release date is, that there must be a reliable official source for the information given.

I'm at work right now, and I'm unable to browse game sites. Wikipedia, thankfully, keeps me sane ☺. Just thought it would be worth a mention, but I'm unable to fix it myself. -Louis 167.1.143.100 19:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Done! cheers, --guyzero | talk 19:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Hot diggity dog, that was fast. Realised after I posted that the release was mentioned in the same source used for the other regions. Thanks for the speedy update —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.1.143.100 (talk) 19:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Reception: NEUTRAL!

Now that reviews are coming in, I know its safe to assume they will be mostly positive, but by the ways of wikipedia (lol) we should keep the reception section as neutral as we can, even if cons in reviews are minor. Stabby Joe 19:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Cite: Street violations - Confirmation of K-Mart management

Sorry, but where exactly is this "while inside the box, there is a smaller container with a smaller amount of copies, usually between three and five, labeled "SELL ON NOVEMBER 13, 2007." coming from? --∑ssarege∑ 22:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Kmart Early Release

I just posted that (http://www.cheapassgamer.com/archives/cags-score-mass-effect-early-at-kmart.php) had revealed that Kmart was releasing this game early (under the counter ish...) Its probably important info? I'd think so, If you disagree, please post your reasoning and do what must be done. Thank you! --∑ssarege∑ 02:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I cleaned it up a bit and added a link to Christ Priestly's confirmation of early sales. Also changed it to "Street Date Violations" DumberDrummer 01:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your hard work! My wording was off too, but thanks for the clarification, it is greatly appreciated! --∑ssarege∑ 20:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think I can post it in the article, since it constitutes original content, but I'll just let everyone know as a heads-up. I picked up a copy at my local K-Mart on Tuesday the 13th. However, when I went back with a friend yesterday (Thursday the 15th) the register wouldn't allow them to sell it. A message popped up when they scanned the UPC saying the game wasn't released yet. So, it seems that K-Mart has taken steps to stop the early sales. -GamblinMonkey 15:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Plot Details

Just a reminder that the details to the plot should not be posted BEFORE the release of the game officially (i.e., those that purchased it at Kmart). I'm basing this on a similar rationale as not posting the Harry Potter 7 plot details based on the .pdf that was released a week or two early.

155.212.94.131 17:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this a little different, though? People (like myself) already have official copies in-hand. The PDF was possibly a hoax. It's not like they're going to press a vastly different version and ship those to retailers next week. The copies that are out there are the same as the copies that everyone else will get when it comes out. -GamblinMonkey 13:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I was more referring to the rationale of not releasing the details before they were meant to be out in the open. You are absolutely right about this definitely BEING the final plot, but all I'm saying is that the story shouldn't be publicly available HERE before it was intended to be.

155.212.94.131 17:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Singapore Banning

According to the article at the link below, the game has recently been Banned in Singapore because of a hoomosexual scene in the game. Should this be in the article. Here's the link. http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20071115/tot-uk-microsoft-singapore-ban-566e283_1.html Looneyman 20:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Ban lifted, see updated article. Chensiyuan 14:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Michael Ironside

Michael Ironside also has a role - I don't know the character's name, tho. JAF1970 (talk) 03:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

I added semi-protection to the page because of the increased vandalism lately. FSU Guy (talk) 12:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I put in a request for semi-protection just now. I was unaware that it had to be approved first. I think we are going to need it with the increased traffic starting 11/20/07 with the release of the game. FSU Guy (talk) 18:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Arcane review score box

Can we dump this arcane piece of shit. This is NOT USEFUL. Period. End of story. JAF1970 (talk) 14:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Compilation scores

Hold off on compilation for another 48 hours to allow them to catch up to the rest of the incoming online reviews. JAF1970 (talk) 15:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

References

And... What's up with the references? Link 31 and onwards are reduced to lines of HTML source. - Louis 167.1.143.100 (talk) 01:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Fixed.. someone left a ref tag open. --guyzero | talk 01:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

PC World

I know that many here will quickly call me a fanboy but don't and hear me out. I mostly edit game pages to make the reception section more neutral so I'm by no means trying to prevent cons and lesser reviews from being added but the problem with PC world is 5 fold.

  • 1 - Its a PC mag that has reviewed a console game, and it doesn't review PC games alot either.
  • 2 - Again, no fanboyism but its less than normal review status and linked with the previous point might lead some to think its biased?
  • 3 - It doesn't contribute to Metacritic or Game Rankings.
  • 4 - It hasn't ever been mention in any other game articles.
  • 5 - We don't know the reasons why it has a 60%.

Despite being said I know people will call me biased but I'm far from it if you check my other major contribution in reception sections. Stabby Joe (talk) 15:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Dialogue Section

Howdy. In regards to the Dialogue section where it states:

"The player can interrupt the speech of another character, and the character will react appropriately to the interruption."

It was to my understanding that this feature has been removed. I believe they may have mentioned it in the newest 1Up Show episode. Anyone have an "official" answer on that? - Louis 167.1.143.100 (talk) 19:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

From what I am seeing playing the game at the moment, it no longer interrupts, but rather skips the speech been given at the time of pressing "X". This seems to have no effect on Paragon or Renegade, or the NPC's, but instead just a methed of speeding things, up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.154.24.147 (talk) 19:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Cool, thanks for the clarification there. Can't wait to get out of work to play this! Killing me inside. -Louis 167.1.143.100 (talk) 01:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Displacement of medical term

The medical term mass effect (the physiological effect of a growing mass such a tumor pushing on nearby tissue) has been displaced by this article. The redirect page does not have a link to that former article. It should be restored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.35.35.34 (talk) 00:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, there is a link to the disambiguation page (which includes a link to the medical term you mention) at the top of this article. cheers, --guyzero | talk 01:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Dialogue Section

The dialogue section is in dire need of a cleanup, specifically the third paragraph. All of this particular part needs to be removed:

"The player can interrupt the speech of another character, and the character will react appropriately to the interruption (as opposed to a system that simply allows you to skip through dialogue to save time). If the player wants to befriend someone, they must wait until the NPC finishes speaking, deterring the player from constantly interrupting NPCs. The only drawback to the dialogue is that however the character may appear"

For one, as discussed earlier, the characters DO NOT react to you interrupting them. You simply skip the dialogue as in most other RPGs. Secondly, this does not change their disposition towards you, or your renegade / paragon stats. Lastly, the last sentence runs straight into another one. It wasn't that I copied and pasted it wrong as it may seem, but there is actually no end to the sentence.

Don't have an account, so I can't edit it (sorry... I'm a Wiki-at-work kinda guy ☺). -Louis 167.1.143.100 (talk) 16:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Dialogue Section

Can someone please correct it? The part about interrupting NPC's lines - it's not in the game. Any dialogue line can be safely skipped to save time and it has absolutely no effect on character's reaction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.209.216 (talk) 23:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Articel errors

"An example of a major moral choice the player must make is to kill or set free a Queen Rachni (found on an icy research world). There are arguments for and against letting the Rachni queen live; in the game's back-story, the Alliance fought a huge war against the Rachni 2,000 years before the start of the game. The Rachni were only defeated by the Alliance with the aid of the Korgan. The Rachni war ended with the extermination of all the Rachni (genocide) as no peace was possible between the Alliance and the Rachni of that time"

It was the Citadel races, not the Alliance, that defeated the Rachni, 2000 years ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.29.31.5 (talk) 10:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Jealousy

I don't know if they will bring this up in the game, but I think that Anderson might be rather jealous that Shepard is given the duty of Spectre. In the novel it was originally considered to Anderson, but Saren badmouthed him. Also I wonder if Anderson will make it a personal vendetta against Saren to payback for the damage he did to his career.64.24.85.114 01:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

This was never even implied in the game. Anderson treats Shepard as an equal and respects him thoroughly. He even treats him with a sort of paternal affection. It IS a touchy subject when you bring up his failed specter status, but he doesn't seem to hold any grudge against Shepard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.109.99.2 (talk) 13:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Shepard or Shepherd

In the begining of the text it says Shepard, later (Character background part) it says Shepherd Someone sould change that...

//S990WE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.217.42.64 (talk) 13:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Fixed. Why is this article still semiprotected? --guyzero | talk 18:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Jealousy

I don't know if they will bring this up in the game, but I think that Anderson might be rather jealous that Shepard is given the duty of Spectre. In the novel it was originally considered to Anderson, but Saren badmouthed him. Also I wonder if Anderson will make it a personal vendetta against Saren to payback for the damage he did to his career.64.24.85.114 01:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

This was never even implied in the game. Anderson treats Shepard as an equal and respects him thoroughly. He even treats him with a sort of paternal affection. It IS a touchy subject when you bring up his failed specter status, but he doesn't seem to hold any grudge against Shepard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.109.99.2 (talk) 13:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Shepard or Shepherd

In the begining of the text it says Shepard, later (Character background part) it says Shepherd Someone sould change that...

//S990WE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.217.42.64 (talk) 13:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Fixed. Why is this article still semiprotected? --guyzero | talk 18:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Plot

OH MY GOD CAN SOMEONE PLEASE PUT A SPOILER ALERT ON THE PLOT DESCRIPTION!!! WHY PLAY THIS GAME WHEN IT'S BIGGEST SURPRISE IS REVEALED IN THE FIRST SENTENCE OF THE PLOT DESCRIPTION!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.38.130 (talk) 05:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Should the current plot be pushed into background and the actual game plot be used? --Carpse (talk) 12:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


Should be pushed into the background. That, and everything else needs to be filled up more. Like, alot more. I mean, the game's been talked about as much if not more than halo 3, and near everything that was on it now was put on BEFORE the game even came out, including plot 24.222.183.237 (talk) 23:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedias do not have spoiler warnings: If you don't want to know the game's plot you really shouldn't look at the article. I mean; you would expect the article on a popular movie or book to include a plot synopsis. If I was reading The Beach by Alex Garland I would avoid looking at it's wikipedia entry because it tells you what happens at the end. It's common sense. If Wikipedia wishes to be taken seriously as a research and reference tool it must exist above this debate about "spoilers." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.90.232.145 (talk) 22:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Trimmed it some by about 1/3 down to 1000 words from 1500. looks better hope I didn't miss anything that was already there and really pertenent to storyline, Im only halfway through my first play so much I can't assess as being pertenent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Om dorastrix (talk • contribs) 06:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

BTW trying to write from a sexually neutral standpoint is hard. The player can choose a male or female Shepard, but I can go on a write he/she it looks like hell...Om dorastrix (talk) 06:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Removal of the Wikia link

In the interests of our own guidelines I have removed the Wikia Mass Effect link. The Complete Mass Effect Wiki and Mass Effect Planet are good enough fan sites and wikis, as well as all the official links. Please see Wikipedia:External_links#Advertising_and_conflicts_of_interest for further reasons of the Wikia removal. JayKeaton (talk) 12:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of interest has nothing to do with this, and Wikia's wiki is far larger than The Complete Mass Effect Wiki (379 to 73 articles). Kirkburn (talk) 23:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
It seems that neither The Complete Mass Effect Wiki nor the Mass Effect Planet are non-profit. In which case, I would ask a neutral party (who has no intrinsic stand for or against the fansite's hosting service, Wikia) to objectively evaluate the content and quality of the three fansites, to decide whether the Wikia fansite can be added back. -Pan Sola (talk) 23:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
If BioWare feels that the Mass Effect Wiki at Wikia is worthy of being listed on the official Mass Effect site, then there is no reason that it should not be listed at Wikipedia. JoeLay (talk) 03:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, including the wikia link is not a WP:COI conflict and that site's quality of content seems to be at least on par with the other fansites listed. A proposal is to just post the single link to Official Mass Effect fan site list and delete all fansite listings. cheers, --guyzero | talk 11:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Downloadable content

Should there be mention of it in the article? Chensiyuan (talk) 02:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

There most certainly should be a mention of it in this article. There are meant to be two more Mass Effect games that will complete the story arch, and downloadable content in between each game that will fill in the gaps of the story between each game. The DLC should have been mentioned in the lead, as no other game has ever spread a story arch over three titles in this way and had DLC to continue the main game story. The reason is, and spoiler alert here, but your choices in Mass Effect carry on to the other games and DLC, so all your hard work and unique gameplay will continue on. JayKeaton (talk) 02:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Can't wait for the DLC, but it seems the official site doesn't have specific treatment of the topic -- most I've heard was it being mentioned in interviews before the release of the game. Guess it could still take some time. Chensiyuan (talk) 03:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Interviews with the developers should be a good enough source, in fact it is probably an even better source than the official site as official game sites are often just purely promotional and they are never up to date. They are usually just put up once as general information and then forgotten about by the publisher JayKeaton (talk) 04:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
True, but I think in terms of DLC, as and when it is announced, should come from the developers first -- in the interim of course, I don't expect the official site to be constantly updated. Chensiyuan (talk) 04:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
This recent interview [6] mentions upcoming DLC (hopefully by year end!) but is too vague in terms of schedule or content to make for any reasonable inclusion into the article. If there is DLC coming soon, I'm sure we'll see better information that we can include soon as well. Is there an RS and good information with regards to the fact that decisions made in part 1 will carry through to parts 2 and 3? That'd be a great addition to the article, if so. cheers, --guyzero | talk 19:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This article is the worst yet

This arcitle is a mess the plot is less that basic and inacruite the plot does not follow a prophey insted a hunt for a rouge spector. it falies to metion any points in the story and ingnors the ending. but thats just to start the whole this is rilled with inacroute facts and missing items of large importantce, Has this arcitle even been updated post realse? I can see all the proplems with facts in this article but as you can tell my skill with gramor means i am unable to correct the proplems with this .....well its not a arcitle about mass effect because there is too much wrong with it plese fix this junk article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ralon silver (talk • contribs) 08:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

If you can't even articulate your own thoughts with a modicum of clarity (or at the very least, use proper spelling/spellcheck), I'm not sure that you've earned the right to complain about anyone else's quality of writing. (144.92.85.41 (talk) 21:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC))

I had looked at the article when that was posted, it was a mess. Perhaps because of the article being written before the games release. Now that should never be done, these articles should be fact not speculation.(220.236.161.70 (talk) 07:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC))

plot 2

should it be noted that the plot can differ depnding on what planet you vist first or 2nd or so on, and that you can visit the planets in a diffrent order than said in the article. This should be included —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.236.185.25 (talk) 01:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Isnt the plot the same, no matter which planet order you go in? Kap2319 (talk) 04:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

For the most part yes, but small differences are there. aslo the order that the planets are visited can be diffrent isn't included. I went to noveria first so the changeable order should be there.(220.236.161.70 (talk) 07:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC))

I'm confused. Why is there a tag on the plot section complaining about it's length? Given how long plot descriptions run in other game pages (Metal Gear for example), I don't see how this is an actual problem versus a stylistic issue. Also, it says in the tag something about "reiterating the plot"? IT'S THE PLOT SECTION. Where else is the plot going to be written?

On a seperate but related note, it doesn't seem like I can read any article on Wikipedia anymore without tags and complaints from people who are very obviously less about being helpful and more about being retentive rules and regulations wannabe lawyers. Instead of slapping a tag on entries and attacking what dozens of other people have worked on (who actually care about the article and not whether it fits your "legal interpretation" of how an article should look like), maybe you should offer suggestions or God forbid, actually write your own "better" version of whatever put a weed up your ace. Of course, then you would have to face other people's opinions of YOUR work and we can't have that. 144.92.84.206 (talk) 14:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

If you'd click on the wikilinks in the tag, it would show you why this is a problem according to the MOS.
People do not spend every waking second working on Wikipedia. Sometimes, they find a problem with an article's adherence of Wikipedia policy, and they do not have the time to fix that article, or the rest of the community is unaware of the problem with the article. Tags are used to flag these problems so that all editors can be aware of the problem and fix it. Tags are not meant for laziness, they are meant to inform the community as a whole of a problem. Peptuck (talk) 14:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, it is a fairly long plot section for a video game, but I think it has to be. I've seen alot of plot sections that are pages long because people write every little mundane detail (i.e. Shepard, Kaidan and Jenkins land on Eden Prime, they encounter floating gas-filled aliens but are told that they are not a threat. They round a corner and Jenkins runs ahead and gets killed. They are then attacked by flying robotic drones...) When I first looked at this section I thought that was what was going on here, but when I tried to go through and cut stuff out I didn't find much that wasn't essential to the story. That's the problem with a cinematic game that lasts much longer than a movie, it's gonna have a lot of plot. Mad031683 (talk) 16:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree that its hard to really cut back on the plot. Mass Effect is very convoluted, and it is hard to write a decent plot summary without it being long, as there are a lot of small details that are very important to the overall plotline. Any amount of trimming can potentially cut out important details; I just ran through the plot synopsis again, and someone had trimmed out the mention of the Reapers and the Conduit in Tali's recording, which is one of the small but critical parts of the game's plot that reveals the Reapers. Without it, the rest of the article made no sense at all. Peptuck (talk) 17:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Oops, that was me, I meant to try and rephrase that from what was originally there but forgot to put it back in. Mad031683 (talk) 21:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

this games plot is very important to the game nobody really wants to shorten it and it does fine as it is. But my orignal point was never fixed the misstion crital planets can be viseted i a diffrent order than in this article so this article is wrong untill it is fixed.(58.109.31.47 (talk) 01:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC))

It's so nice to have such bright young minds talking down to other people on the presumption that they need an explanation of this brand new concept of "policy" or how this futuristic "policy" concept works. Must be so hard for the intellectually superior people that spend all their preciously short free time policing almighty policy and educating the lowly masses on what simple concepts are and emphasizing how the world will end if not every article is exactly in line with the boilerplate laws of the mighty Wiki Universe. I fear a tear in the very fabric of space and time if the plot section does not please these noble, selfless martyrs holding Wikipedia back from the brink of policy violation madness. Why they have not been simply anointed as the gods of the Wiki they clearly are, I shall never know.

Put another way, maybe not everything in the world needs to be perfect and the plot section was fine the way it was. The section was not great, not amazing, but fine and screw policy because nothing great or amazing was ever written according to someone else's policy. If policy means that much to you but you can't find the time to fix the article because it's not that important to you, it's hard to take your critique seriously. In point of fact, it is laziness if all you do is complain about a problem but make no effort to fix the so called problem (and really it's cowardice choosing not to risk judgment of others for that matter). It's elitist, self indulgent grandstanding to just pass judgment and then expect others to be grateful for the input while riding off to seek out some other problem you can complain but do nothing about.

At the rate this kind of nonsense is going, there is going to be a Wikipedia policy that forbids article deviation of any kind, that all articles must be approved by hand picked clique committee, and once they are approved, all editing will be locked out (except from the select few). I get that Wikipedia is a camel, but I almost hope that it does get to the point where only a staff of authenticated historian/lawyers decides the fate of every article, no matter how trivial (like video game articles). Then everything will be perfect. 75.42.235.53 (talk) 03:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. I know what you're saying. There're plenty of counterproductive people around WP. But, one purpose that tag serves is to remind us that there is perhaps larger room for improvement for the plot section than imagined. I would suggest not taking it too hard -- I've been massively hindered by misguided folks on WP on plenty of occasions but that won't stop me from editing. Sometimes, they would also get to see your point of view when they see your contributions record. It is my hope that you would continue improving the plot section and do justice to the game. There *will* always be people in your way, sometimes they're right and sometimes they're wrong, and in this instance my view is the plot can be a little more concise, let's work on that. Chensiyuan (talk) 04:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
58.109.31.47, I tweaked the plot a bit so that now there's nothing that says. This happens then this happens, it just says these things happen, without expressly stating an order.
75.42.235.53, You may not consider the tags useful, but alot of editors do. They allow you to mark a problem you may not be qualified to fix. I don't know who put the tag on, but maybe they haven't played the game. I'd rather have that tag than a bunch of cuts by someone unfamiliar with the game. I've been watching this article for awhile, and would like to see it get to featured article status, so I welcome any constructive criticism. Someone thought the plot section was too long, we discussed it and came to a consensus so the tag was removed. Where's the harm? Mad031683 (talk) 18:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The plot size is not an issue if you play the game you would think stuff has been left ou and if you havent you would think its too long. if everone is just a little unhappy the its as good as it gets(211.31.85.242 (talk) 02:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC))

Awards?

Is it of value to the article to continue to retain information about ME's E3-2006 awards and also information about the various award nominations (vs. wins)? cheers, --guyzero | talk 18:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Take pages like Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion and Shadow of the Colossus, they don't list every win and nomination, just the wins and the most important ones because along with the page theres a citation for a complete list of awards EG in Oblivion's in the intro it says it won numberous awards followed by a refference to the whole list. Stabby Joe (talk) 18:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I've made an edit [7] to remove most E3-2006 awards (with the exception of the Game Critics Award) and all of the nominations in an effort to tighten up the article. Please feel free to revert if you feel that the article is better with this information intact. cheers, --guyzero | talk 06:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

specialization classes

And may I please ask where specialization classes??? This article is not very well put together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LaBarge (talk • contribs) 00:58, January 9, 2008

As someone else would have eventually pointed out, this isn't a game guide and information like that was included in the early days of the article, but was subsequently removed due to Wiki policy violation (or the anal retentive interpretation thereof). This article, overpoliced or not, is put together well by any standard. It may not be the way you way you want it to be put together and therein lies the rub. There is a difference between your aesthetic opinion and actual fact. (144.92.84.206 (talk) 20:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC))

i've had thoughts of the like, not so far as bad just could be better. specialization classes are part of the game its not a gmae gide to say "at this point the players defoult class (vangard adept ect.) is changed to one of two choises depending on the orignal class. its not being a gide just being a complete article. we cant wittle down all the infomation here, saying its giving a gide of how to play the game. i have never seen it reach this point, so putting in that the players class can change is ok, just don't say where and what unless giving examples. (58.109.62.151 (talk) 23:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC))

Development section missing

It's early days yet (in terms of distance to GA), but a good gaming article should have a development section. Chensiyuan (talk) 02:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge Citadel Station

Citadel Station (Mass Effect) should be merged here. It's not notable enough for a separate article, per Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), and mainly rehashes the plot, which could be covered here instead. Pagrashtak 18:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The page just redirects to here now, so I'm going to remove the template. --Asclepius Dices mihi 20:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Sex

Found this on Penny Arcade - http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/KevinMcCullough/2008/01/13/the_sex-box_race_for_president?page=full&comments=true 67.81.60.34 (talk) 03:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, there is no controversy, it's just one misinformed hack on one site that has mistaken Mass Effect for Second Life (probably would have helped if either he or one of his aides had bothered to play the game but I digress). Everything he describes is Second Life and none of it is even remotely close to Mass Effect's gameplay. He and his people should read the Wiki article on "defamation" and the sub-section on libel. Mr. McCullough is attempting to use a video game to generate controversy (and more to the point, transparently promote himself AND his book) for his own financial gain. Someone should tell him that Hillary has already been there, done that with the "Hot Coffee" ridiculousness (which is funny/ironic given his particular ideology). (76.201.154.234 (talk) 04:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC))

Thanks for clearing that up. I read the article and I knew it didn't sound like Mass Effect. Him mistaking it for SL makes sense. Thanks. 67.81.60.34 (talk) 04:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should add this note into the article? The McCullough article has gotten pretty widespread links, and I imagine lots of people (like me) will want to read about Mass Effect on wikipedia -- and then they will be (like me) confused by the lack of sex. (Not that I'm not often confused by the lack of -- oh, nevermind...) I don't want to add it without getting some consensus, though... Deltopia (talk) 11:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

And give this guy even more free publicity? I don't think so. If his "review" (and I use that word in the loosest sense possible) had even been in the slightest bit about Mass Effect, it might have warranted mention but his description is clearly Second Life and not Mass Effect. Yes, there has been discussion about it (that's how the internet works and more to the point, why this page exists) but it's still one minor, politically biased webpage with a erroneous "review" that was clearly about a different game and not really even about the game so much as a chance to rant about values in America. Till we see it on major media outlets and/or websites, I say it's no different than any other random guy who puts up a completely wrong "review" on his personal blog. (144.92.84.206 (talk) 13:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC))

I say leave it out. The game he's describing clearly isn't Mass Effect and if he'd played it at all he'd know that. He's just another random yahoo getting on his soapbox for 5 minutes of fame. Petrarch 20:50, 15 January 2008 (GMT)

Seconding both Petrarch's and 144.92.84.206's opinions on this. Barely relevant to Mass Effect in the first place. Peptuck (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Fourthing that opinion, I already removed this from the article when somebody added it. If this becomes a bigger deal then I would support adding a section explaining his mistake if sources could be found. Mad031683 (talk) 23:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

McCullough added a follow-up piece defending himself yesterday, which was later edited earlier today, presumably to add a link to another follow up from today. He confirms that it is Mass Effect he's seen (including providing links to YouTube search results, rather than specific videos), but to me, most of the things he says are still clearly false, and have been rebutted by multiple sources. He also goes out of his way to insult the videogame community at large on multiple occasions.
As it happens, this does appear to be getting quite a bit of coverage from the specialist games press... is there any coverage from the mainstream media? Dreaded Walrus t c 16:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Not that I've seen but then again, the only thing anyone is reporting is that he is completely incorrect in his description of the gameplay, that he admitted his review is based solely on a couple of minutes of YouTube video and that he has a politically (and probably financially) motivated axe to grind. Not really a legitimate story when the facts at the heart of it are flat out wrong because no one involved with the review actually played the game. For the more, "major" media outlets, there might also be a small concern about libel and the lawsuit that could follow. More likely, it's simply not on par with Iraq and the primaries. 144.92.84.206 (talk) 20:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

put in in or give him crediblity. if it isn't in here we are not giving infomation to people, and thats the point right? just say somthing along the like of: there was confustion and contreversy raised over the minimal nudity in the sex related segments of the game. this was due to >insert name or alias to avoid giving him waht he wants<"s msataking ms=asss effect for the poular MMORPG seccond life. Well you get the idear, it is a question that needs answers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.236.249.164 (talk) 11:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

First, not sure how much credibility he has and not really interested in having a protracted discussion about what the difference is between a "real" journalist and a political hack with a blog. When we are talking about people who write articles about video games, it's murky enough as it is.

Second, people are getting the information on the Mass Effect forums and other places, including this page right here and will be just as informed. If we put in every thing said by anyone on the internet that even remotely relates to Mass Effect, the article would become insanely large and wouldn't benefit in the slightest. The article is fine the way it stands and doesn't need an addition about how some guy wrote a "review" about a game based on a YouTube clip and was subsequently wrong in all the essential details about the game. He apologized for not doing his homework, his article was poorly sourced (to say the least), and it's now a moot point.

Third, the major media never picked it up (with good reason) and it was never a controversy except to the people that would have benefited from it being a controversy. Why do you think they start these kinds of things to begin with? They aren't protecting anyone, they are trying to get their name in the press and sell something (either getting elected or selling books or generating hits on their website). It's all about the publicity and money, nothing more, and both "sides" do it.

The answer was and still is, "No, we don't need to put this in the main article." Putting in a section about how one minor "journalist" (and I use that term in the most liberal definition, pun intended) had a completely wrong review is not notable (see relevant Wiki policy) nor really even logical. 70.226.175.7 (talk) 16:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't even matter anymore. The original article is gone. --Scorp Stanton (talk) 02:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree. Since major media did not pick it up I don't think it is necessary. Even if they had, I would have recommended waiting several months for things to cool down before putting it in. This would be to temper any benefit that Mr. McCullough might hope to gain from it. Nothing really ever happened, so it is not important. As ScorpsSt said, the article has been pulled, So it was, and still is a non issue.65.165.240.65 (talk) 18:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Foxnews picked it up.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YEzRJ5ojtg god I hate them.. 90.148.96.21 (talk) 13:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Sales Controversies

Don't you think we should remove the Sales Controversies.. category? It's not really a big deal. A rumor about Kmart and Kmart saying there is no Mass Effect out yet. So what?--71.72.82.183 (talk) 05:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

This sounds familiar, doesn't it. I won't object to its removal. Chensiyuan (talk) 06:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Sex Controversy and Fox News

I know that there's a section for this at the bottom of the page, but this is newish and that's oldish. Anyway, should there be a section about Fox's wildly innacurate report on the sex scene in this game, and EA's letter rebuttal? 67.204.195.235 (talk) 02:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

ok screw it. put in a 1-2 line metion but dont go into depth of any one even

I'm on the fence now. The criteria was if major news picked it up, BUT it does seem like the media (especially FOX) are not only late coming to the party (the article was out a week ago, the game has been out for two months) but were just as inaccurate in their discussion of the game. http://kotaku.com/348187/ea-calls-fox-out-on-insulting-mass-effect-inaccuracies is the link to EA's reaction (the Microsoft press release was pretty lame) to this nonsense.

I dunno. The only reason it's become a thing is because the people involved not only don't know what the hell they are talking about, but eagerly admit they haven't even played the game. The FOX news anchor said she just looked at some video clips to prepare for the story, very professional. They certainly didn't just hire her for her looks. I'm glad journalism isn't about "reading the book" or even reading the book's cliffnotes anymore, but reading someone else's review of the book cover and then talking about it as if all the facts are in. That's either lazy or criminal, I'm not sure which.

Were I in charge of the segment I saw on FOX about Mass Effect, I'd be worried that not only were we way deep in the weeds of what borders on slander, I'd be embarassed as a news provider that I couldn't be bothered to ask one 19 year old intern to go play the game over the weekend and bring back some footage and some notes so the lead journalist had the relevant background before going on air and looking like a fool. All they had to do was talk to a handful of gamers that played the game for ten minutes and would have had a much better understanding than reading one blog and watching some YouTube and calling that research. And consider this, if this had been about anything other than a video game, if they had run a story on a person with that much error, there'd be a lawsuit.

Anyway, if we do put in something about all this, it either needs it's own article or there needs to be more than just two lines. IF we write anything about this (IF being the keyword), it should be comprehensive in details but also explain how we got here. The controversy is coming months after release (which is suspect), is largely being created by people with a vested interest (television programming is losing out to video games), AND are either grossly (and some might say negligently and unprofessionally) misinformed/misrepresenting the facts or are deliberately lying about the content of the game. 144.92.84.206 (talk) 14:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


I just believe that the sex Controversy section needs to be rewritten. It is too opinionated in some parts towards one side as well as there was more than just what was listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.33.220.124 (talk) 22:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

"It is noteworthy that the game hardly pushed boundaries with sex in game. A PC game released in the same period The Witcher, contained a multitude greater explicit sexuality, but did not receive nearly as much public backlash. Incidents with Mass Effect are likely just a case of moral panic, due to the high popularity of the game and the fact that layman media pay more attention to console platforms than they do to PC gaming."

who ever put that in is wrong, Mass Effect and The Witcher are both about as popular world wide, Mass Effect was just more popular in a conversative country like the US than The Witcher was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.209.233.100 (talk) 22:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Should we add FOX inviting EA, BioWare and Microsoft to the show?--User:NFAN3|NFAN3 (talk) 23:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Voice of Sovereign

Does anyone know who did the voice for Sovereign? It doesn't appear to be in the credits, or listed here or on IMDB. Mloren (talk) 11:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I've not found any specific mention of who does that voice so far. I'm guessing it was listed as an additional voice given the small speaking role it had, which could make it any one of about 70 people. It does have a passing resemblance to Wrex's voice in some ways if you listen closely enough, but it could just easily be any of the others in the cast list. Petrarch 19:17, 01 February 2008 (GMT)

I thought Sovereign sounded like the actor from the Matrix Sequels, Helmut Bakaitis (The Architect) which would be very appropriate given the character. I was also curious as to who the voice of Vigil was (sounded a little like Keifer Sutherland but I could be wrong, I've searched but didn't find anything definitive on cast for either role).144.92.85.41 (talk) 21:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight

At the moment the s controversy is really getting out of hand. How can the section form such a large part of the article? It's becoming a platform to ridicule the already ridiculous "journalists" in question and reads nothing like an encyclopedia. In the scheme of things the whole incident's nothing terribly important insofar as WP is concerned. Chensiyuan (talk) 01:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It seems contain POV and chunks remain unsourced. --guyzero | talk 02:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Cybercast's article did not receive the attention of the Fox news report (beyond Kotaku.) It appears to be included to just add unnecessary additional detail to this section. I have cropped this article from the section. Re-add if there is additional information/sources that suggests cybercast's article on mass effect is noteworthy beyond kotaku/diggs's mention of it. cheers, --guyzero | talk 03:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Both contoversy sections should be merged and the sex scene bit needs to be toned down. The Fox News piece should be mentioned, but it should not be so large a part of the article. It should be presented as "This is what happened, how it happened and why." I have a serious problem with those who use wikipedia as a soapbox for voicing their bias. Present the facts, both sides of the story, and let the reader decide what view to take. This is how you disseminate information to the masses. You do it fairly. This is all common sense. I stick with my prior conviction that if it must be added, do so after things blow over. This is all too fresh in peoples hearts and minds, and most are saying ridiculous things by letting their anger get the best of them. -Jacob 65.165.240.65 (talk) 17:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

If it were just a controversy that might be true, but this is about deliberately falsifying or at least grossly misrepresenting the truth in a news story. Love them or hate them, FOX is considered a profesional, legitimate source of news and they had an obligation (just like all journalists and news providers do) to present the information impartially and accurately. Right out of the gate, their tag for that segment was Sexbox, Full nudity etc. That outrage isn't just that a game got slandered, but that a major news outlet so badly researched the issue and then allowed discussion of the issue with the same bad information being presented as established fact.

Consider this, if we applied the standards and policies that Wikipedia has for articles against that news segment, what would be the end result? Or put another way, if we took their approach on that segment to an article, would that article stand with only a controversial tag or would it have to be completely rewritten? There would be eight kinds of editor outcry about bias, lack of sources, the real possibility of the article being legally actionable, and so on. Nobody would be saying, it's not that big of a deal.

Watch the video past the interview and you can tell not a single person in that following roundtable discussion had even heard of Mass Effect before that day and most certainly didn't bother to do any real research. The discussion itself was brief to the point of absurdity. Why bother to have a roundtable if the people involved aren't going to have a chance to discuss the issue at length AND clearly don't know what they are debating aside from the old chestnuts of Free Speech, Free Choice, Good of society, moral responsibility, etc.

No one beside Geoff had even bothered to talk to the makers of the game, play the game, talk to people who had played the game, and so on. He was the only informed person on the subject and that's beyond ridiculous to the point of being offensive. At the very, very least, the journalist "moderating" the interview should have done her homework but freely admitted that she had just watched some video.

In my opinion, I think she knew she was discussing an issue she shouldn't without having more background and I could see that she felt she was a little out of her depth or more likely, felt this segment wasn't really worthy of news. FOX was most likely using this as some kind of filler segment but that doesn't justify putting a completely erroneous segment on air and hoping they were right.

If this had been about a person and they had gotten there facts so badly distorted, there would already have been an apology and/or a lawsuit. Instead, it's a video game so no one thinks that's merits importance outside of the gamer community.

Except, truth is not a luxury and we depend on the news media to try and give us the best information possible. I'm not so foolish as to think they won't get things wrong or be biased, but they still have a professional obligation to do the best they can and make sure they have their facts straight. This game hadn't just come out the week before, it wasn't some breaking development, it had been out for a couple of months and no other major media outlet had made so much as a whisper about the sex in the game before their segment aired. Even their own tech review guy who played it back in December gave it a glowing review and never mentioned anything about full frontal nudity or multiple sex scenes.

They could have used their own game review as research or even better, the actual person who wrote the review and played the game could have been in on the roundtable so that at least one person from FOX had the information they needed. Instead, they went with a few video clips as background and proceeded to attack something that they knew almost nothing about. (Don't even get me started on how underqualified Cooper is). There's no excuse for what happened.

FOX was negligent, reckless, and lazy in their coverage of the game and did in fact commit slander against the game, the company, and all the people who put effort into making the game. It wasn't an accident or oversight, it was about being completely, avoidably wrong and then not owning up to it when they found out how off the mark they were. If nothing else, they should have apologized and somebody should have gotten suspended to demonstrate they care about getting the story right and being as fair and honest in conveying the facts as they claim to be.

Truth isn't relative to the importance of the subject matter. We shouldn't dismiss it because it's lie about something we don't care about, coming from people whose central job is about getting the truth to us. That's why this has weight and merit. 144.92.84.206 (talk) 21:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately the whole basis of your argument as to why this should be included so extensively in an encyclopedia does not stand to scrutiny, and does not comport with the core policies of this encyclopedia. Like it or not, Wikipedia does not even attach a premium to truth to begin with, whereas weight is irrefutably a longstanding official policy. In any case, I'm not saying let's delete this whole controversy section, I'm just saying: (a) let the facts speak for themselves and avoid the POV commentary; and (b) keep it concise and weighted relative to main subject, i.e. the game. Chensiyuan (talk) 00:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Does not stand to scrutiny? I just love being condescended to in a subtle, overly simplistic way, makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Nice use of the word, "comport" by the way.

What's truly unfortunate here is that your position is Wikipedia doesn't attach a premium to truth. When I use the word "truth" I mean accurate information. I don't have the anal retentive nature that some do in attaching absolute literal meaning to words and rely more on the context of what is being expressed. But let's say you are right and Wikipedia doesn't really care about any of that.

So we can make things up in an article as long as we have sources for it? We can write entire sections based on erroneous sources so long as we can cite those sources AND don't make the article too big? Your position is that getting the information correct is not policy but not giving undue weight is and THAT'S what's important?

Your argument is the one that does not hold up, sir. "Verifiable" may not mean true in the literal sense, but I'm guessing most (if not all) of the people who contribute here would like the information to be accurate. To me, that's kind of a common sense thing and shouldn't need to be codified as policy but I realize for every three people (like myself) that feels some things don't need to be spelled out, there is going to be one retentive literary lawyer who wants and needs to argue the semantic nuance of every policy, line, and comma placement in any and all articles that appear in "their" Wikipedia. Information that's well sourced but ultimately false is not going to be of any use to anyone no matter how brief or without undue weight it is and I believe that's a given. I shouldn't have to use policy to prove that.

As for weight, this game is at the center of something that has continued to grow and has had far reaching consequences, particular for the gaming community, Ms. Lawrence, FOX, and the integrity of news media coverage as a whole. When I last checked, none of this was being addressed in the FOX Live Desk article, video game controversies article, or anywhere else which is fine as long as it has some presence in the Mass Effect article, which is the game at the heart of the issue.

It doesn't need to be a huge section, I agree with that, but it does need to be specific in what happened and the ensuing aftermath. IF that requires a fair amount of space, then so be it. Better to have the relevant facts in a well written section then write a brief, bare bones section that leads to unnecessary interpretation and confusion by the reader.

(After reading your personal page, I see you are conservative and take issue with homosexuality, which is not a part of this game but some believe it is because of the asari/female shep. romance. I would further guess you probably like FOX news. I hope your not letting your bias get the better of you and that's where all this undue weight nonsense is coming from.) 75.42.235.162 (talk) 01:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

If indeed my bias is affecting my views here, then surely I would be the first to decimate ME to the ground for having a scene suggestive of homosexuality. Instead, I have argued from core policies of this encyclopedia, and no, I don't live in a country where I can watch FOX news, so I don't know a thing about FOX or care either. You may call undue weight nonsense, but so far all your rhetoric weigh hollow, and it is so painfully obvious. Chensiyuan (talk) 03:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

So at last count we have Guyzero, Jacob and Chensiyuan opposing the inclusion of this FOX news thing. On the other side we've got the anon IP user. I'm going to enter the mix now and make it 4 to 1 and say, this is really stupid. Can you *honestly* say the section reads like an *encyclopedia* now? Common sense please. And mister anon, stop laying your insecurities bare for a global audience. Maybe that's why you hide as an anon! Manderiko (talk) 03:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey. I rewrote the section, cited the New York Times multiple times, and removed the tone and cleanup notes. I have no strong feelings about the section, but it looks pretty good as it is now and is an adequate way of mentioning what we probably should, namely the hot lesbian rishathra. Oh, and don't diss anons more than is necessary, I've seen them blow veterans out of the water. Thanks, Kizor 00:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Of course, it's always better to lose a veteran =) On a serious note, yes thanks for cleaning up the tone. I'm still not convinced we need that amount of detail. Three paras tops for me. Chensiyuan (talk) 01:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Uhm, when did this become a show of hands? Wikipedia isn't a committee. And the controversy just keeps on going so it's an issue, it's of note, it deserves to be addressed in the article, my insecurities have nothing to do with this article and you need to fuck off with that kind of nonsense and especially the holier than thou nonsense of "does it look like real encyclopedia?". Since when is that a criteria here? It's an article about a video game. How many "real" encyclopedias devote space to video games? This is Wikipedia where everything and anything of note is addressed at probably far too much length. And then, joy of joys, argued over by people who think this is somehow an ownership issue because they spend far too much time here nitpicking and that somehow entitles them to praise and deference.

And no, I don't have to be polite, other people made this personal before I did and I have a right to express my discontent. Quote whatever you like, but I don't need your permission to write what I think.

As for anon, it's because the computer I am working from is work related and it would be a pain to log in every time I have a response. I have more important things to do. 144.92.84.206 (talk) 22:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for resorting to foul language and name-calling to make your claims. Nobody on this talkpage supports a thing you say, so I'd just report your uncivil behaviour and delete the content that clearly has no purpose on this encyclopedia. Bye. Chensiyuan (talk) 12:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
"And no, I don't have to be polite, other people made this personal before I did and I have a right to express my discontent. Quote whatever you like, but I don't need your permission to write what I think."
WP:CIVIL says otherwise. Peptuck (talk) 17:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

"Sorry to correct your misinformation, but its not only been restricted to blogs. Among other sites, it had been reported in Gamasutra (the number one website for game developers) News.com.au (the number one news site of the country and continent of Australia), parodied on Penny Arcade, among others. Its even been so bad he had to retract his statement. To not even have a single mention in is erring too much in the other extreme. ~ (talk) 9:18, 8 February 2008 (GMT +8)

There is no misinformation --- lets just focus on the content. If we don't have the sources, we don't have verifiability. Please correct the article to provide the Gamasutra and News.com.au citations. Things that are only sourced by blogs or CNS or McCullough (selfpub, self generating controversy) should be cut. --guyzero | talk 01:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
The article from news.com.au is already in the article, but I'll include it here as well [1]. Can't seem to locate the gamasutra article since it was quite a while back (maybe I did remember incorrectly on that one source), but a search on Google easily provides additional news/non-blog sources as well such as Gamepolitics.com which is owned by the ECA, or Entertainment Consumers Association. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhanzhao (talk • contribs) 15:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.news.com.au/technology/story/0,25642,23084609-5014108,00.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mass_Effect/Archive_1&oldid=1046600003"