Talk:Return to Castle Wolfenstein

Enemy Territory addition
I added content for the Enemy Territory section, including the classes, and a bit of detail on the missions. I've played the game, and my source is  - Shenzhou —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shenzhou (talk • contribs) 23:48, 8 August 2005 (CET)
 * I’ve probably removed most of those additions. Given that Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory has it’s own article it seems unnecessary to give much more than an explanation to it’s ties to RTCW and a brief explanation of what the game is. There’s plenty of in-depth gameplay information on it’s own page. It’s RTCW gameplay information that this article is sadly missing at the moment. &mdash;FlooK —Preceding unsigned comment added by FlooK (talk • contribs) 16:13, 26 August 2005 CET)

Sequel
The sequel HAS already BEEN announced it is called "Castle Wolfenstein" NOT "Return to Castle Wolfenstein 2" Kristian Joensen 19:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Xbox 360
Uh... should "XBox 360" be listed as a platform jsut because it's backwards compatible? I mean, then PlayStation 3 should be added as a platform, too. For now, I'm removing Xbox 360 from platforms. -65.216.158.130 14:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry, I didn't realize I wasn't logged in. That was made by me. -ChewyLSB 14:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

M3 Carbine/Snooper Scope
"...an experimental American sniper rifle with a night vision scope..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M3_Carbine

"The M3 Carbine was an M2 with an active infrared scope system."

Just sayin' ~ g_z —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.244.132.189 (talk) 23:19, 19 April 2006 (CET)


 * Yeah, I noticed this before when I was reading an article about the Carbine. I've sinced changed it but there's no indication that the real model was silenced --Jayau1234 15:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Reboot
Do you think that this game would be referenced as a example in Reboot (continuity)? Pictureuploader
 * Depends on the existence of sequels, since it could just be an alternate version of the CW story. Unfortunately, without a direct statement regarding whomever holds the Castle Wolfenstein license, any statement about it being a reboot or not is OR. Virogtheconq 14:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Drew Markham (the creative director at Gray Matter Interactive) said in a 2001 interview (with IGN) that "Return to Castle Wolfenstein is more of a retelling than a sequel.". 24.126.160.110 keeps fiddling around with the status in the overview without explanation or reference, which I found particularly annoying. Perhaps this article should be cited so there's no confusion. I don't know about anyone else, but I'm tired of "reboot". Maybe it would be best to go with his exact phrasing of "retelling" and link to the reboot article, something like "Return to Castle Wolfenstein (RTCW) is a retelling of the early ..." --Superlgn (talk) 04:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

"First boxes to feature a flap" (resolved issue)
Could somebody explain this statement to me? If it means that games with a flap on the front were not popular long before RTCW was released, then this statement is wholly incorrect (off the top of my head, System Shock 2 was released a whole two years before this game, and has a flap; there were probably games with flaps more than a decade before that). --Edwin Herdman 05:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Went ahead and fixed it. --Edwin Herdman 00:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Ninjas & Early Flamethrower designs

 * It should be mentioned that there were to be ninjas in the game (Screenshot of Ninja) but were supposedly removed because of technical as well as storyline restrictions. Also, the flamethrower initially had a different design that progressed far into production (Screenshot of Prototype flamethrower) before being changed in the final game. -75.130.90.56 02:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)-

Game(play) Definition
I know RTCW is generally considered to be a First Person *Shooter*, but it should be noted that at the end of the day, the single-player portion of it is rather a hybrid between a Shooter and a Sneaker (á là Thief, Splinter Cell, etc.). Certainly you can burst in and rush through and shoot everything in sight and thus win the game, but unlike many competing FPS titles of the era (MoHAA comes to mind), almost every level can also be tackled with a stealthy gameplay; not to mention it has dedicated stealth levels that outright demand avoiding firefights as a victory condition. And this is by design - the game knows "quiet" modes of walking/crouching, one-stab kills from behind that only work under respective conditions, and silenced weapons. Additionally, the AI knows several levels of raising and lowering/relaxing "alertness" depending on whether an enemy has seen or heard the player, and these also trigger respective responses and branch into varying actions (such as many plot dialogs that can only be overheard from a hidden position when the AI is unaware of the player's presence, as opposed to confronting the player in a firefight or trying to look for him). 91.33.220.118 09:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC) Yes you can also jump in halo, is halo an FPS/platformer? I think FPS is enough. Yes a gamer can always say "yes but its not just that, its also this" but for encyclopedia purposes, FPS works fine as a genre. 174.42.147.70 (talk) 19:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Possible Easter Egg?
When you first start the game in the cell, there's a picture on the left wall with markings and a picture of Kilroy. Is this already in the article? It is in the Kilroy was here article. Abcw12 06:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Factual errors for multiplayer classes
I have removed some factual errors in the description for the "Medic". Medics can have three extra clips, they are not limited to one. The "poison needles" are not present in the original multiplayer game, they are only present in mods.--Fogeltje (talk) 16:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Technical Implementation should not include level summary
I split the listing of missions and plots out of the 'Technical Implementation' section. Having them there doesnt' make much sense and actually could be detrimental, because they are effectively spoilers of the game's plot (i haven't played the game, so i'm interested in the tech stuff but dont' want the plot ruined yet, for example). I put them under hte heading 'level summary', it can be anything else if someone prefers. Jeremyclarke (talk) 17:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Fancruft
The article is crammed full with fancruft. Wikipedia is not a game guide.Lots42 (talk) 21:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

i changed deathmatch into objectives
objective84.212.73.96 (talk) 12:57, 23 June 2016 (UTC) is what the manual states.

Development section
The current development section of this article feels very disjointed and it barely discusses the actual development of the game, as in how the game was initially conceptualized, when production began, and important people responsible for the game. I believe there is valuable information in the section, I just think there should be more discussion of the actual development of the game. I may do some research at a later date to see if there is enough sources available for me to change the section myself. I would also like to hear other peoples thoughts on this. Huey117 (talk) 01:59, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Edit war on designers
A newly created account has been adding unreferenced other designers, saying he was one one of them. I am not bonded to the subject and leave this here for concerned editors to develop consensus. Ifnord (talk) 16:58, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The editor was adding unsourced designers as a IP user, which he did not disclose that he was one of the designers in his edit summaries. It was only after I left him a message on the IP user talk page about adding unsourced names such as David Kelvin not only on this article but on serval other articles as well, he created the account and is now be claiming to be a designer. His claims doesn't any weight to them as far I'm concerned and I have added a conflict of Interest warning on his talk page due to his claims, if he keeps adding unsourced names and refuses to have a discussion on his or article talk page then he should be reported. TheDeviantPro (talk) 02:10, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

That said, I'm going back off here. I really don't want to continue to get in a edit war. TheDeviantPro (talk) 03:01, 6 March 2022 (UTC)