Talk:Supreme Commander: Forged Alliance

Ludoyo's vandalism edits
Ludoyo, regarding your removal of the entire Supreme_Commander:_Forged_Alliance section that has been around for years:

The reason you provided was:

But when you actually follow the link to significant coverage and do a quick search for "significant coverage", this is what you will find:

I'll break it down for you:

I can't make it any more simpler.

Read the actual guidelines before quoting them, try it, it's not hard, it benefits everyone if you read them first before using them as the reason to remove entire sections of the article.

Better yet, apply basic etiquette and state your intent here and ask for a second opinion before making big removals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki Maintainer (talk • contribs) 00:21, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Units
Are people going to add 100 units in this list?. Has this will violate WP:NOT and many others. So i feel the best thing to do is to add all the units and all sort of info which can not be added in wikipedia can be entered here.--SkyWalker 07:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I've removed the list. Good call. --Eyrian 10:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

"New Race the Seraphim"
Is this confirmed somewhere? I've heard this as rumors, but I'm not sure it is established enough to post yet.

Darthirv 02:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * See the gamespot interview --SkyWalker 07:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There are rumors on the internets... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.161.253.164 (talk) 16:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge
This should be merged with Supreme Commander until more information is available. Smaller expansions are generally discussed in the parent article, and this expansion is small until we hear more. --User:Krator (t c) 16:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Make sure to redirect until there is enough information, and to keep an eye out for when the time comes to split. References should be pretty clean to integrate.--Clyde (talk) 18:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep separate - This is not an expansion - it is a completely stand alone game. Fosnez 22:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep separate - No Way, This is a expansion set and a standalone game and deserves a separate article. What is this world coming to..?. --SkyWalker 07:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep separate - Eventually all info regarding this game will become available - if u merge now we will eventually need to split it again. ``Miffy900 09:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

copyright
is it possible to include stuff stated in previews, or is that a breach of copyright? Also, how encyclopedic? frankly tired of citing web. Cuo 12:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes you can include info from previews. I suggest you visit some featured article to gain more inf such has StarCraft, Supreme Commander and many more. --SkyWalker 13:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Citing web from the start is a good practise. I personally filled in 50 cite web templates on the Supreme Commander article, which ultimately got promoted to FA. Citing sources is important. Note that citing is never a breach of copyright. Copying sentences is, copying information is not - (unless it is patented - does not apply here). --User:Krator (t c) 19:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Standalone nature
The term "standalone" may be confusing to some readers, especially considering what little is known of the expansion pack's pricing scheme and the content it will contain. It makes it sound like the expansion will have everything the original did, which seems like it might make customers who purchased the original more than a bit angry. I'm not sure if there is a page on the wikipedia regarding the computer game industry's usage of the term "standalone" but I think perhaps a section about its content and pricing in regards to its independence from the original game may be warranted. Of course that may be hard if not much is known to the public, so I'm wondering if anybody here has any information or knows of any articles that have any information regarding the more business-related aspects of this product? 69.124.142.33 22:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well if you look at Dark Crusade. It is a standalone expansion for warhammer 40K. It can either be installed if you have the copy of Winter Assault and Dawn of War. If they don't have this game there is no problem they can still play Dark Crusade without the need of those two games which i mentioned. Same thing goes for Supreme Commander: Forged Alliance. It does not need supreme commander to play this game.--SkyWalker 09:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Box Art
I do believe that the box art has been released on Amazon.com or the forums. Not sure if u can just take these pics, but would make a nice addition to this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesjohansen (talk • contribs) 01:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 10:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Forged Alliance has been released
As of November 6, 2007, Forged Alliance is avaliable for purchase in the USA. Nov. 20th is the release date for europe. UEF Soldier (talk) 18:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What about the system requirements? I don't see them anywhere. --Simpsons fan 66 23:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

My minor edits
Okay, here's what I changed:

- Clarified the status of a "standalone expansion", to point out that without an installed copy of the original, you can't play online as the Aeon, the Cybrans, or the UEF

- Edited the number of new units. The back of the game box does boast over 100 new units, this is true, but the overwhelming majority of those belong to the new faction (and whether the Seraphim versions of mass extractors, engineers, and walls really count as "new" is debatable). Thus while the "100 new units" claim is technically true, it is somewhat misleading. I clarified instead with a statement that the other three faction get "several" new units. 66.183.197.172 (talk) 08:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

(Whoops, forgot to log in. The above is me. Will the Great (talk) 08:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC) )

Someone really needs to change..
..the bit about Forged Alliance being "further optimized for better performance". The original game runs ten times faster on my system than Forged Alliance. Maybe FA was optimized for SPECIFIC hardware/driver sets. And I'm not running exotic hardware by any means, before you ask. 214.13.173.15 (talk) 04:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * While I agree 100% that the original game runs considerably smoother then the allegedly optimized expansion, the alleged optimizing is documented in many places (such as http://www.games32.com/Supreme-Commander-Forged-Alliance-(PC)-Reviews/p2000_articleid/474/p2000_page/2) and our position that it runs more slowly then the original would be original research. Unless we can get a cite for it being slower, should stay as is for now, IMHO. Ouze (talk) 09:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * OP here.  So as long as it's quoted on some site (regardless of its reputability), it holds more water on Wikipedia than original research.  Kinda silly.  Come to think of it, isn't "original research" the only real kind of research?  Everything else is plagiarism....  I know I'm arguing for a lost cause, but eh!  214.13.173.15 (talk) 01:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Forged Alliance runs much slower if you have range circles turned on. Turn them off and you'll see a significant performance boost.Ziiv (talk) 13:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Update to Designer info
The lead designer on the project was actually Bradley Rebh, not Chris Taylor. This update was made. Credits will confirm this, and can confirm this as a member of the team (not Brad). Anon66.162.141.145 (talk) 23:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for updating. --SkyWalker (talk) 06:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Metacritic User scores are NOT Reliable Sources
To those who think otherwise please read WP:VG/USERREVIEW and discuss why it does not apply in this instance. If a consensus can be reach that it in fact does not apply then, and only then, should the edit warred bit of content can stand. For the record the I vote it does apply and the content remain out. -Oosh (talk) 10:20, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


 * A number of problems here.


 * Oosh has stated that metacritic user scores are not reliable sources, without specifying what this is referring to. In fact, metacritic user scores are the primary source for metacritic user scores. This is relevant because the content removed by Oosh specifically states that the ratings reported are based on metacritic user scores, speficifally "...the second all time highest average user score ..." Oosh would have a point in claiming that "metacritic user scores are not a reliable source", if this source was used to support a statement such as, "Forged Alliance is the second best RTS game ever made"
 * Furthermore the wikipedia article referenced by Oosh, to support his assertion, establishes the unreliability of user reviews based on the fact that they are a self-published source. This is undenyable, but does not apply to the case in question, since the removed content was not based on one, but on 133 different users. For example, if the removed content was a quote from a single user published review then Oosh would be justified in removing this material, since such a system could be easily abused and wikipedia should be protected from such manipulation.
 * The second point raised in the wikipedia article referenced by Oosh, is that sometimes average user scores are affected by "trolling" review scores, where gamers assign a low score for a reason not based on the quality of the game. This has not been the case for Forged Alliance and is therefore not applicable to the current situation. If such was the case then it would not be appropriate to use user scores as a measure of the game quality, however the reception section of the wikipedia article would be the approprate place to warn the reader that the user scores available for this game have been subject to "trolling"
 * There are at least two reasons why inclusion of user scores from metacritic are especially important for Forged Alliance. The fact that the average user score is so unusually high even after 133 user ratings is a statement about the quality of the game and should be made more visible. The fact that these rating are spread out over a period of six years is a testament to the fact they are not the result of organized manipulation attempting to make the game look better than it really is. :Furthermore the available professional reviews for the game are from 6 years ago and are influenced by the fact that computer hardware was not available to run the game smoothly in most situations and a large fraction of potential gameplay had been obscured for years as a result.
 * To summarize, 133 average user scores do not fall under "self-published source", to date are the best unbiased testament about the game available and will be valuable information to wikipedia readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.250.160.54 (talk) 18:20, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


 * One or one million, self-published is self-published, and drawing conclusions from raw data is Original Research (see: WP:OR). If you can find a WP:RS that discusses the game's enduring popularity, a retrospective on it perhaps, that supports the claims then put it in.
 * Furthermore, this is not the place to discuss the validity of these policies. Take it to the relevant project group if you think it should be changed. Until then they have no place in this, or any other, article. -Oosh (talk) 06:27, 15 December 2013 (UTC).

You misunderstood. One is different than data compiled based on one million, especially when this data is compiled by a reputable source that specialized in such data collection. Please reread the wiki article that you linked about user-review. The content you removed does not come from any single user review. It comes from work done by www.metacritic.com in compiling ratings from 133 separate registered users. This is not original research, this is research done by www.metacritic.com using data collected from its users. The removed content had been correctly cited and does not fall into any offending category that you have suggested, please put the content back into the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.34.193 (talk) 08:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I must say wikipedia is full of spineless trolls. Unsourced or poorly sourced materials... I encourage people to take a closer look at this and see just how pathetic this is. Didn't even bother to read what was stated in the talk page, instead just abuse your power to censor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.34.193 (talk) 22:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC) To show just how bad this is observe how you can find the source that has been deemed unreliable: Step 1. Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:VG/RS Step 2. In the locating reliable sources section follow the link to Reliable Sources for Video Games, https://www.google.com/cse/home?cx=003516479746865699832:leawcwkqifq Step 3. Search "Real Time Strategy", the second result is a link to metacritic rating, where you have 4 choices for ranking, one of these four choices is user score. This is precisely what was cited in the removed content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.34.193 (talk) 23:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Engaging in ad hominem attacks will not further your argument. Metacritic is an agreggator, it does no research or analysis, therefore aggregations of WP:RS are fine for inclusion but aggregations of WP:SPS are not. You do not change the fundamental nature of WP:SPS's by gathering them in large numbers.
 * If you have a problem with this, or WP:VG/GL more specifically, then there are forums in which to do so. Starting an edit war in the article of your particular interest is not the way to go. Or, as I said before, try to find a WP:RS that discusses the enduring popularity of this game and how it has grown to outstrip what critics initially thought of it (which was high praise already) and add to the article accordingly.
 * I'm sorry you feel persecuted in this, but I have no more power to request administrator action than you do, the ruling has simply gone against you in this instance.
 * - Oosh (talk) 00:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

These are not ''ad hominem" attacks. Specific issues have been raised that were completely ignored. Your statements such as "Metacritic is an aggregator it does not research and analysis" and "You do not change the fundamental nature of WP:SPS's by gathering them in large numbers." are your opinions and are actually false. Taking an average, is analysis. In general objects in large numbers have very different properties than individual objects. If averages were the same as individual values, then there would be no point in polls at all. The biggest problem with what you have done is that you applied an inappropriate reason for removal of the content. You used, 'user reviews' and 'user ratings' interchangeably, then were too stubborn to admit your mistake. Your contribution to wikipedia is to censor, not to protect content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.250.160.54 (talk) 05:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If language like "spineless trolls", accusations of censorship and attempting to cast doubts on my motives, are not ad hominem then I don't know what is. This argument has become circular in nature, it seems we will never agree, I tried to educate you but have little interest in engaging further esp. with someone hiding behind anonymous IP edits.
 * The fact remains this recent kerfuffle has seen the article locked for "Addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content", which kind of speaks for itself, there really is no further debate to be had IMO.
 * - Oosh (talk) 05:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

GOG FAF GAMERANGER AND SQUAREENIX
https://www.gameranger.com/games/

https://www.faforever.com/2020/06/bad-news-for-gog-users

FAF requires steam, GOG doesn't get FAF, gog talks to square, maybe it happens. until then GOG supcom can play on gameranger. someone else write it though i've already been shat on by an admin who deleted my contribution so this is as far as im going. 2006 wikipedia was way less bureaucratic and IT GOT SHIT FUCKING DONE Mirddes (talk) 17:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

"LOUD Project"
To Winner 42: Regarding your decision to repeatedly remove the "LOUD Project" section, I see 3 main problems:

1. Who gets to decide what is a reliable source, why you, what is your background and credentials? Did you visit the website referenced, and do your own research with the vast amount of information on it, before deciding it's not reliable? Have you even played the game? The project has been around for a decade, it's well known within the FA community.

2: Unprofessional and vague description of your actions. It's not helpful to others who has to clean up your mess when you walk around Wikipedia and throw WP:RS around randomly removing stuff then call it a day. Be more thorough with your description, do you believe the official website is not a reliable source? Why? Does it have a bad track record? The paragraph you removed is just a standard description of the mod, you'd know the accuracy of it if you follow the website referenced and do your own research, or simply play the mod. Or watch some videos of it.

3: Double standard. Let's assume we have noting better to do, so we go around the net with an pedantic attitude, and arrange the world into our comfort zone of rigid orderliness, out of the irrational fear of chaos, slow intuition and the inability to quickly adapt to unknown situations, then instead of admitting it's not really necessary, we virtue signal and tell everyone, including ourselves, that what we're doing is for the betterment of mankind. Let's go with it, and remove all paragraphs on Wikipedia that are not referenced by famous, powerful, reputable and "reliable" sources (Subjective, but let's just pretend our standards are objective universal truth).

In that case, after we remove half the pages on Wikipedia, we arrive back to this page, and the first thing we'll do is remove the entire "Forged Alliance Forever" section, (which sits above the Loud Project paragraph you removed). Why? Because in the FAF section, the part "The client features many upgrades to the official one" is not backed up by any sources, let alone "reliable" ones, next, the part "the FAF community has continued to balance and patch the game" is also not referenced, where is the link to the patches? How can we tell it's the truth? REMOVE. The part "Several new modes are also available" is also not referenced, REMOVE.

Then we remove half of the rest of the page for the same reason.

You may think you're helping but you're not, the original game runs extremely slow an hour or 2 into a large game (that's usually when things get really interesting), the LOUD mod solves that problem, and offer a good game play experience for those who want to play a long game with large number of units.

You are reducing the chance of those who came to this page looking for nostalgia finding the MOD and relive a good experience.

Like I said, STOP FKING AROUND. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki Maintainer (talk • contribs) 11:46, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Wikipedia does not include every mod of every game that's on moddb. A reliable source from a third party is necessary to establish inclusion of material like this. The section on Forged Alliance Forever has reliable sources from both PC Gamer and Eurogamer. If the LOUD project is covered in sources like these, it may also merit inclusion in the article, but you have not provided those. I'll also caution you to avoid personal attacks as they are not constructive and can lead to you being blocked from editing Wikipedia. I'd also advise you to read the policy on No original research as it may clarify some of your questions about how Wikipedia uses sources. W 42  22:48, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, I repeat: Over half of the Forged Alliance Forever section is not referenced by anything, and are "unreliable" and has "no original research" by your definition, which you clearly decided to ignore over and over again, double standard.
 * And PC Gamer and Eurogamer as "reliable source"? LOL
 * Quick look up:
 * 1, PC Gamer, well known to be biased, 1.7 star on trustpilot
 * 2, Reddit: Why is PC Gamer's glaring conflict of interest with Epic not widely condemned?
 * 3, Eurogamer Exposed: Bias Journalist Hurts The Game Industry
 * 4, NintendoToday: Eurogamer lied about SEGA's Wii U graphics quote
 * 5, The Contemptible Games Journalist: Why So Many People Don’t Trust The Gaming Press
 * There are more.
 * Your so called "Reliable Source" in the end are nothing more than subjective opinions backed by financial interests.
 * Hiding behind words like "authority" "reliable" while applying double standard based on personal preference and siding with the "bigger guy", ignoring the actual effect in reality is why people can't take you seriously.
 * "Oh this is not cited, that is not cited, this is not reliable, that is not reliable", but the entire paragraph above for another mod is full of 404s and statements with zero reference.
 * Of all the things in the world you can do, of all the text in the article, you made the choice to nitpick on the LOUD Project section and ignored everything around it?
 * Be consistent or be quiet.
 * I'd advise you to get off that imaginary ivory tower, people choosing to nitpick and go heavy hand on the underdog, while turning a blind eye on the big guy and their friends, is why the world in in shambles.
 * This is the truth and you know it. Wiki Maintainer (talk) 22:15, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Existing consensus is that PC Gamer and Eurogamer are reliable sources. You should consult WikiProject Video games/Sources for what sources are acceptable to support inclusion. If you want to argue that PC Gamer is not reliable, that is the place to do so, but it's extremely unlikely that you'll get consensus to change it.
 * Per WP:PRIMARY, "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source." So simple statements of fact about features or dates can be supported by such sources. Although the section definitely needs some work with repairing deadlinks and such.
 * What you need to do if you want the section to remain on the article is to find a source similar to the PC Gamer source for FAF to support the section on the LOUD Project's inclusion, two random blogs will not be sufficient. The source should be listed here. W 42  16:42, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * To (User:Ludoyo and User:Winner_42):
 * You two kept citing the same rules over and over, but none of you have cited one of the five pillars of Wikipedia:


 * Nor two of the most important fundamental principles of Wikipedia:


 * I'll apply patient and spell it out to both of you, again.
 * This is where all the Wikipedia policies and guidelines begin:


 * Click on it to find this right at the top:


 * Scroll down to the Role section:


 * Scroll down to the Adherence section:


 * Now go to the Use common sense section of What Ignore all rules means:


 * Read:


 * Then read:


 * Then read the diagram and flowchart of ignore all rules:


 * Take note that "common sense" and "that it improves the encyclopedia" are the ultimate considerations above all else.
 * Now go to Wikipedia:Understanding IAR:


 * Read:


 * Now go to the "Wikipedia:WIARM" version of Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means:


 * Read:


 * Then read:


 * Now go to "The rules are principles":


 * Read:


 * Then read "Purpose of the principles":


 * Then read "Context is everything":


 * Then read "Ignore all rules":


 * Now repeat after me:


 * Are we clear?
 * If not, read everything above again, I'll wait.
 * It is important that you actually read and understand what the Wikipedia's principles are about before continuing, or you may keep swinging the same rules over and over again like they are the only things that matter in the universe, not realizing that's not what Wikipedia is about.
 * Moving on, here is an existing Wikipedia article in similar context, the "The Settlers II" article:


 * Read the Legacy section:
 * Read the Legacy section:


 * Take note that "Return to the Roots" has no reference to any reliable source (video games).
 * How the Settlers_II article is similar to the Supreme_Commander:_Forged_Alliance article:


 * You two (User:Ludoyo and User:Winner_42) are now advised to:

Wiki Maintainer (talk) 23:46, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Wiki Maintainer, read what is not vandalism if you're going to name a section this. Ludoyo (talk) 17:37, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You are making this vastly more complicated than it has to be. You just need to find 1 reliable source that covers this mod and then it will merit inclusion. Citing WP:IAR to include material not reliably sourced is clearly not in the interest of Wikipedia and definitely not the purpose of WP:IAR. You claim I haven't cited the pillars, but I already cited WP:NOT and you seem to want to cited IAR in order to ignore WP:V which is a core principle of Wikipedia. I did go ahead and remove the section on Return to the Roots though in Settlers II, that paragraph also did not merit inclusion because it lacked a reliable source.


 * Try to look at this from the perspective of Wikipedia, if we allowed every mod that exists to have a paragraph or section, the encyclopedia would be flooded with unreliable information of dubious usefulness. Wikipedia is a not a directory of non-notable mods to videogames, it is an encyclopedia, so please provide a reliable source covering LOUD or content covering it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. W 42  14:33, 29 September 2022 (UTC)