Talk:Face of Mankind

Genre
Someone needs to change the games genre. It is not a MMORPG anymore, it is now a MMOG. It doesn't contain any RP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.4.205.110 (talk • contribs) 04:23, October 13, 2006
 * That seems strange; though I don't actively play anymore, and haven't for some time, it seemed to me as if the RPG element was something important that differentiated FoM from other MMOFPS games on the market. What do you mean by "it doesn't contain any RP", exactly? Ourai т с 12:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

FoM is still classed as a roleplaying game. What the person above probably means is that the playing community is too retarted to roleplay, and thus there is hardly any roleplaying going on.


 * Face Of Mankind is now a ORPG. Nothing MMO about it. Its a Online Role Playing Game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tockwork (talk • contribs) 23:46, November 22, 2006
 * There is quite a bit MM about it. The fact that people play it online at the same time and interact in real time the way they do (did, at least, when I played) makes it MM. Ourai  т с 06:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

FoM is still a MMORPG. It is multiplay, it still has the ability to be massive, as in server captivity, and it is still an RPG. 86.150.150.48 19:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Publisher
There is some confusion about the producer of this game at this time. Evolved Games is now listing FoM as one of its titles. OJOM has been the producer (since release). It is not known what this means, and there has been no official announcement.

--SupermanX 21:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Game Content
I have added a small section on game content, due to common misunderstandings about what type of content is available in this game. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SupermanX (talk • contribs) 01:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

Reorganized Links
I just reorganized the links into alphebetical orer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.4.205.110 (talk • contribs) 04:23, October 13, 2006

FoM General
I have added sections to the talk page to organize it some. Please use them. --Spiffydudex 15:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the Face of Mankind wiki entry is that, as Spiffydudex said, the game is extremely dynamic. Also, the game is undergoing major changes at the moment because it is still in the Open Beta mode, and so smaller details change repeatedly. From what I can tell, the only way that an article such as this could be kept both nonbiased, accurate, and within a resonable size would be to have a relatively small article, about half the size it is now. After the release of the game (supposed to be in November 2006), then things could be made more permanent. Since much of the article will be outdated and inaccurate by the time the game is officially released, there is no real reason to include this information. The faction descriptions, for instance, should only be a paragraph or two long--after all, this is an encyclopedia article, not a universal comprendium of every fact known to mankind. Ourai 04:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

big hi from eric king of vortex inc.... i hope to help edit this article soon Kingpomba 14:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The game itself is so dynamic and always changing that it is hard to keep up with the current status of the game. --Spiffydudex 14:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I've finished straighting up the page. Lets just hope it keeps this way. --The Echo 02:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I just fixed the faction descriptions. I'll try to keep them this way every chance I get to be on Wiki.

I've also applied for protection for this page from Wiki to help stop the vandals. I will proceed to edit and cleanup the rest of this page. --The Echo 02:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

as I said before, I added Nonsense and speedy deletion due to ONLY the introduction actually RELATING meaningfully to the game.

I've attempted to delete several times the nonsensical entries (The "legends" tactics parody, etc") but it was reverted.

XXEXCELSIORXx 00:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Is there anyone I can contact about the constant abuse of this page?

I'm new to wiki, but this page seriously needs to be edited in its content.

I've repeatedly deleted offensive/false information, but it gets readded by users, so I believe.

Essentially, the only TRUE part of this page is the faction description.

http://forum.fomportal.com/showthread.php?t=25939&page=4&highlight=wikipedia

For information about how this arose.

XXEXCELSIORXx 23:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Faction
OK, I hope to have done something useful. The faction descriptions were almost literal copy and pastes of the Story Chronicles directly from the Face of Mankind webpage. Besides probably being slightly illegal, it is far too much content for a page. The information was redundant and provided very unclear information as to how the factions work in the actual gameplay. I removed most of the descriptions and condensed the rest, keeping it at one to two paragraphs per faction, one of history and one of actual effects. Frankly, I don't think anyone would care about what was lost. They can read them for themselves at the Face of Mankind page for more information.

This happens to be my first major edit of a Wikipedia article, and so I may or may not have done what was called for; still, I think it was needed--the article was a veritable eyesore. Ourai 01:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Please can someone shorten the faction descriptions, they still take up to much space. There is still no real detail on gameplay or the economy. --Spiffydudex 15:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the "Removed factions" section as it is unneccesary and wasted space. --SPIFF 15:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The "Removed Factions" section should be put back due to explaining ALL factions. Including the ones in open beta. Tockwork 23:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Corporations
I have updated the text for CMG, and made minor modifcations for EC and VI. SupermanX 03:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I have added information about the UTI. Mag

I have removed the second paragraph of the under the Vortex INC. section as it was lengthy and mundane. --SPIFF 15:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Economy
I have added some information on mining/refining/production. SupermanX 03:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I have added some more text to the Main Economy, Faction pool and Player Market sections. I need someone to do the mining as I have little experience with this new system. I still think it would be a good idea to remove some of the text in the faction descriptions. I will work on that next after I finish the economy section.--Spiffydudex 15:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Mining still needs to be added within the economy section, if anyone knows the first thing about it...  ◄  ИΞШSΜΛЯΞ  ►  03:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Cells and Departments
I have cleaned up and also edited and added to some of the Departments.--Spiffydudex 15:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This entire section is vanity and cruft. Cack up your own webshite.  BTW, welcome to wikipedia.   ◄  ИΞШSΜΛЯΞ  ►  04:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Common Terms
Just an Idea mabey we could make a table with the common terms in them, just to shorten the page length some. Also do the same to the Cells and Clan section. --SPIFF 15:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate person
Please, keep the tag in the article (and restore it if someone deletes it) as long as the tone of the article isn't fixed. Currently, the article reads as an informal entry, with a lot of second person sentences ("you", "your", etc). Please convert that to a neutral or third person sentence, so that the article can be considered formal. In example, a paragraph that reads:

UC: Universal credits. These credits are the currency of the game, which are used to buy items for your character. UC are earned by doing missions or through the extensive trading system.

should be transformed into

UC: Universal credits. These credits are the currency of the game, which are used to buy items for /a character/characters/the player's character/etc. UC are earned by doing missions or through the extensive trading system.

(choosing any of those, or another formal wording). Thank you. -- ReyBrujo 03:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Game Engine
Face of Mankind is made using the JUPITER ENGINE. I keep trying to change it from Talon, but somebody keeps changing it back. I also keep adding several useful terms to the list, such as FL, R#, Stungank, but they get removed aswell. As does my section on Subscriptions, which outlines that there is no trial and also tells the reader how much it costs. Dyson 20:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

FoM was originally made using the Talon engine then I belive with the graphics revamp that was implmented in 2005 it may have been switched to the Jupitar engines (although I cannot confirm exactly when the change was made or if it was to the Jupitar engine). I can definetly say that it was initially designed using Talon and was still using Talon when I left the testing in early 2005. Thats probably why it keeps being changed if people are not aware of the engine change. Kaediin 21/06/06

It is now Jupiter, DPS confirmed it.

86.150.150.48 20:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Small Issue in Introduction
Just a small point: In the introduction its states the game is "played from either a First Person or Third Person viewpoint". This is not strictly true, as a cinematic camera can also be used. Perhaps this rather superflous comment can either be removed entirely or replaced with: "can be played from a variety of camera angles". Scotty Will 00:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The cinematic camera view is for movie making, not for playing, since you cant do everything in cinematic mode as you would be able to do in first or 3th.


 * Also, the cinematic camera is first person view without the HUD showing up. Tockwork 17:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite
This article is topsy-turvy. There are large sections on plot and other in-universe information, whilst the content that actually needs writing about is limited to external links to interviews and reviews. The article needs gutting, per WP:Writing about fiction, perhaps one paragraph on the plot and the interview/reviews used as citations for rewriting the gameplay sections, and a critical reaction section. There should be enough references to create a development history section, too. Marasmusine 08:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah. I think the article needs to be stubbified, or significantly cut down. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 08:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Decrufted and despammed. Needs copy writing on remaining content. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 08:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've done some copyediting. I'm removing the "Neutrality" tag, since I think I got the pro-FoM language out or reworded. Ourai  тʃс 03:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I may rewrite parts of the general description of the game to not include the statement. "It is also the first game of its kind to use a player-generated mission system." As this cannot be substantiated. Would it also be appropriate to change tense in some of the game description, given that it is now no longer playable? If so, I suggest a complete rewrite of the description to suit the current status of the game and the future development of FOM:Rebirth. --7thPegasus (talk) 17:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there any way you can keep that in? It seemed to me to be the game's best claim to notability.  If you've searched high and low for that and no reliable source said it, though, it should indeed go.  Jclemens (talk) 18:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I will keep on searching but I think Face of Mankind could use the fact it's one of few MMO's with a first person, twitch style of play. I think we could probably find relevant outside sources for this. --7thPegasus (talk) 05:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Fom gameplay.jpg
Image:Fom gameplay.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Face of Mankind Shut Down
The game in question has been shut down. The entire article should be changed to note that the original game has been shutdown, and that the developers are remaking it.

Partially references?
One reference about the rebirth hardly constitutes being "partially referenced".
 * The review can also be used as references. Unfortunately, one is in german, a language I can't speak, while the other is a little shallow. There are also other references such as the news archives here. The article needs cleanup by people familiar with the material, hence the change to a cleanup tag. Notability/verifiability is already established from the reviews. Gazimoff Write Read 16:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion
The game may be defunct as the article stands, but it's being remade. scatman839 (talk) 01:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That may be so, but it doesn't address cleanup tags for notability and sourcing that have been on the article for a year. I won't prod anything that's had those less than six months, and welcome any attempt to address those deficiencies. Jclemens (talk) 01:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Given the game's status as being remade, it seems appropriate to stub the article instead of deletion. It's not wholly defunct, after all. Ourai  тʃс 03:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I only see one sentence that seems to assert notability in the entire article, and that is unsourced. What about a potential future relaunch would make this a notable game?  Player base? Some unique feature?  Attention in the media?  I would really feel more comfortable about keeping this if someone, anyone, familiar with the game could deal with the notability and verifiability issues. If anyone wants to give it a shot, please do so and remove the prod templates. Jclemens (talk) 03:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If you want to delete good information which will give people a better idea about what the remake will be like, go ahead and stub it, dickheads. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.185.132.42 (talk) 08:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a place to advertize games in development. It's an encyclopedia.  Please focus your objection on why any of this should be included in an encyclopedia. Jclemens (talk) 15:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Ourai, I want to thank you for the work you've done on this so far. Are you going to go ahead and stub this? If not, I will probably put this up for AFD in a week or so, to give the person who deleted the prod a chance to fix the existing issues. Jclemens (talk) 15:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

As this is an encyclopedia, is there really a point in deleting an article based on the financial status of the article subject? If we are to use this logic, most entries in this project should be deleted. For instance, Hawker Aircraft Limited, now a defunct company but with a historical relevance in several fields. Therefore, Face Of Mankind, although a technically non-existent game, should be kept on record for it's historical relevance to the gaming industry. It also stands to point out that Face Of Mankind: Rebirth is scheduled to be released, therefore confirming this article's immediate relevance, as already stated by our fellow contributors. --7thPegasus (talk) 15:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 7thPegasus, your arguments are fine, but not really on point: Notability is not temporary agrees with your point; my contention, however, is that notability for this article was never established, by Reliable Sources.  One of the two independant links allows anyone to add a game listing.  The other is a review on a German website of unknown reliability.  If we can't find any external references to it in reliable media, it is not notable.  How can you help this article overcome that hurdle? If so, it's a guaranteed keeper. Jclemens (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I could help to source the information in the article if needs be. --7thPegasus (talk) 15:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Great job so far--keep it up and we can remove the cleanup tags from the page once more things are sourced. Jclemens (talk) 17:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps if you pointed out what needs sourced scatman839 (talk) 21:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The only specific claim that I believed needed to be sourced was "It is also the first game of its kind to use a player-generated mission system." which 7thPegasus has indicated he hasn't yet found a source for. Beyond that, it needs independent, non-fan-generated external references to FoM.  Who noticed it?  Why did they notice it?  Did it make an impression on anyone--reviewer? Sociologist? Another game designer?  Those are the sorts of questions to which any reliably sourced answer will improve notability. Jclemens (talk) 21:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Myself and several other contributors have non-fan references from several third party websites. Is it a matter of adding them to the External Links section? Added two. --7thPegasus (talk) 05:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's more progress--as such, I toned down the cleanup tags to reflect your progress so far. What you can do next is look at WP:FOOT for directions on how to make inline citations.  DartMUD and Whedonesque.com are a couple of articles that I improved by adding footnotes--feel free to look at them for examples, if you need 'em, and ask me followup questions.  On a personal note, it's kind of a sad duty to tag things as candidates for deletion, but everyone wins when a knowledgeable and enthusiastic editor steps forward to fix the issues--a much better outcome overall than deleting things. Jclemens (talk) 05:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I will give the links you gave a look. But I do agree that it's sad to delete things, however if the statement cannot be backed up with sufficient sourcing there isn't really a choice is there. Cheers again. --7thPegasus (talk) 06:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Did the inline refs, some need descriptions scatman839 (talk) 16:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Deleted an entry from the History and changes section. Obviously non constructive and offensive. If author would like to put it back up please give your reasons here. --7thPegasus (talk) 06:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh. Good call to delete it, but I'm not sure it merited preservation here.  The page history will keep track of the fact that it existed at one time. Jclemens (talk) 06:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Just thought I'd leave it for posterity. Haha. I'll remove it, didn't consider the page history. --7thPegasus (talk) 06:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of deleting the article, but it really deserves an entire paragraph at the beginning regarding its notability. I have no idea why this small-time in-development MMO is worth my attention. This is a problem. ◗●◖ falkreon (talk) 05:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Notability - it has none. Player base very small and it is not common knowledge, advertised or generally heard of. A major industry forum I frequent had no clue of it and neither did I until a friend who play side-line games told me of it. I'd say that the article is negligible work and that this so-called MMO is as well. If none notice it save its own zealot fans then should AFD. 62.219.148.12 (talk) 19:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Imho, there are plenty of games out there that have less notability tahn Face of Mankind. While that's not a valid argument, I think any game that has over 12,000 forum users (whether they are still active or not--activity is not an indicator of notability, and if so, perhaps we should delete articles like Continental Army) should be considered notable enough for mention on Wikipedia. This doesn't even include previous users for the far older versions of FoM. Warbirdadmiral (talk) 17:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Development Diaries
For references and such like, the older dev blogs are stored here. scatman839 (talk) 15:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Rename/move article
Since the official title is Face of Mankind: Rebirth, why not move it there, or create a new article and revert the article here to chronicle what the game was like.scatman839 (talk) 15:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I see no reason anyone would oppose this, but it might make sense to leave a redirect from this name to that. Jclemens (talk) 15:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I see no reason why not. --7thPegasus (talk) 06:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well someone do it, I don't know how. scatman839 (talk) 15:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Page moved to Face of Mankind: Rebirth, and redirects fixed appropriately (only two of them). I'll get on fixing the lead so the page reads like it's about a game called "Face of Mankind: Rebirth" (which it is, at this point in the game's development) instead of Face of Mankind. Ourai  тʃс 21:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Removed from article
UTI (Universal Tax Incorporation) is a governemant run organisation in charge of collecting the Universal Tax which is used for the expansion and security of the universe. The UTI is run by debt to society and Magnum Opus. If you are interested in becoming a tax collector please apply ingame ((when released)). Note tax paying is obligatory by all civilians. TAX EVADERS WILL BE SHOT ON SIGHT. Tax must be paid every 6 months with hefty fines for late payers. Our systems carry the DNA of every civilian in the universe so theres no escape for tax evaders. Payments must be paid to [UTI]debt to society or [UTI]Magnum Opus. Other tax collectors will be added at a later date.

Tax Types:
 * Basic Tax - basic tax is to be paid by all civilians
 * Movement Tax - movement tax is an optional tax which allows you to move around in the universe. Without this tax you must stand perfectly still.
 * Market Terminal Tax - Allows use of the market terminals.
 * Production Terminal Tax - Allows use of the production terminal.
 * Speaking Tax - Allows use of your voice box. (talking in your sleep is a fineable offence without this tax)
 * Bundle Tax - Includes all the above tax.

Tax prices will be announced at a later date.

Note all employees of the UTI are exempt from paying tax.

Signed, Managing Directors, debt to society and Magnum Opus


 * This looks pretty in-universe to me. Can anyone provide a context for what this is and why it should go into this article?  Unless FoM:R has been released, it's either out-of-date or WP:CRYSTAL, right? Jclemens (talk) 22:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Whatever it is it's totally useless, some clan shit, no need for it to be in the article as it has nothing to do with the actual game scatman839 (talk) 21:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Please look at WP:NOTMANUAL and WP:PLOT. The material seems completely useless to those not already playing the game, and as such, clearly belongs on a game website, rather than Wikipedia. Jclemens (talk) 20:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * http://forum.fomplanet.com/member.php?u=223 That's where it's coming from, nothing to do with anything else other than those two people, whatever they're writing is fiction since the game isn't out yet, not to mention that there have been no announcements for any tax related crap by DPS scatman839 (talk) 15:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, then I'm going to keep removing it from the article without further comment if it reappears, until consensus changes here. Jclemens (talk) 17:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Cancellation and announcement of new game
http://www.fomportal.com/

So, I would think for this article, that the page should possibly be reverted to an earlier, just face of mankind article, since rebirth never even made it out, with a mention of rebirth below it.

scatman839 (talk) 16:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think it really just needs to be deleted, then. I do not think that reviews for a game that no longer exists meet WP:N. Jclemens (talk) 16:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, how about creating a new DPS page then and a nanoverse page when there's more info available? scatman839 (talk) 16:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If we did that, each article should stand on its own and not violate WP:CRYSTAL. Making a decision on the fate of this article is not an urgent matter, I see no reason to put it to AfD immediately, given the history behind it. Let's think it through here and agree on the best course of action, rather than rushing into a process. Jclemens (talk) 16:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well many cancelled games still have wikipedia articles, it could stay, and give mention in the mean time to the creation of a new game scatman839 (talk) 15:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is that many cancelled games still have notability somehow, someway. It's my belief that this one does not, but I think we should take the article through the AfD process.  I'll go ahead and nominate it if no one else wants to, with the intent of getting a wider audience involved in the article, and seeing what the larger community consensus is.  If the consensus is to keep it, I'm good with that, especially in terms of all the hard work that's gone into improving this article. If it's deleted, it will be deleted because it just doesn't belong in light of the cancellation, not because the article's editors were asleep on the job. Jclemens (talk) 22:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm all for an AFD. FoM is more notable than a lot of the adverarticles that get posted on Wikipedia, but I've been of the opinion that FoM really isn't notable enough for inclusion. But I haven't done that much looking into it I guess. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 00:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * AfD opened. See the main page for the link to it, and please feel free to participate. Jclemens (talk) 20:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD closed as keep, and the closer went ahead and renamed the game back to Face of Mankind. Please take a look through the history of the article and see if there's any old information that should be restored, as well as looking through the information presently in the article for information about FoM: Rebirth which may need to be removed or modified. Jclemens (talk) 17:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't forget to cite! --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 01:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

semi-protected
Please discuss contentious items on the talk page. Jclemens (talk) 06:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)