Talk:Transformers: War for Cybertron (360/PS3/PC)

Game Dialog

Some of the dialogue got some chuckles out of me, especially with Starscream and the seekers ("At least I'm not ugly!" "We look the same!"). Is there any place on this page it would be appropriate to reference these types of things, if not quote them? I just was curious. --71.185.119.196 23:05, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

Things like that amused me but I have to agree with the Gamespot review, it's a pretty tedious game all round, especially having to take Omega Supreme down. Graphics are mostly pretty bad too (and often I can't tell what's what) and the character designs are mostly terrible. There's some enjoyment to be had from especially in having 3 players play the campaign mode but overall I found the technically inferior RotF game much more fun to play. 86.29.61.204 08:11, 3 July 2010 (EDT)

Cluttering the top of pages with templates

Why does this seem like another instance of "Well, it was this way before, and we don't wanna change it now"? Readers who come to this page are not interested in other articles at the moment. That's why they're here. After they're done with reading the article will they be interested in related articles. That's why every other wiki puts the template at the bottom. That's why encyclopedias put lists of related articles after the actual article. Only here do editors have an obsessive desire to shove related (and not very related, as the overuse of disambiguation templates shows) articles into the readers' attention before the actual content has been read. —Interrobang 11:13, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

I really don't care which place it is in, but it should be consistent across the wiki. Having video game pages looking different from comic, cartoon and book pages is confusing. --Khajidha 11:17, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

There it is again. "Confusing". While I prefer those to also have it at the bottom, they're not the same thing as video game articles. And perhaps readers should be given more credit than "it's confusing" for once. I am pretty sure a set of articles having a slightly different format is not going to make their brains implode. —Interrobang 11:24, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

I fear I don't get your problem. I think the navigation template looks way nicer on the top, where the pretty logo introduces the subject, than on the bottom, where the logo feels redundant. Also, I never was a fan of wikipedia's and other wiki's system of cluttering the end of the articles with recommended articles, references and external links as if the article just isn't allowed to end. Now, if there were a lot of recommended articles that would take up up a whole section of the page, I would agree to put it at the bottom. But a handful of links neatly put into a modest box with a shiny logo next to it? That can and should go on top. Geewunling 11:31, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

The opening paragraph introduces the subject. The title introduces the subject. The main image (with the logo in it, no less) introduces the subject. The infobox introduces the subject. Do we need another introduction to the same sequence of letters spelling out "Transformers: War for Cybertron"? And all of that stuff is at the bottom because, uh, readers don't want to get through mounds of text to get to the actual content? It's there because it's easy to ignore, but still existent for those interested. Here, we don't give them the option of ignoring "related articles". —Interrobang 15:11, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

I don't know, I pretty much ignore it hanging there on the right. English is read left to right. --Khajidha 15:31, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

To Interrobang: I meant confusing in that someone who did not read to the end of the article might edit the article to put the nav box at the top without realizing that it was already at the bottom. I don't care which way is chosen, I just think that it should be consistent. ALL relevant pages should have it at the top unless and until it is decided to move them to the bottom, at which time ALL relevant pages should have it moved. Yes, video game articles are different from book, etc articles and some differences should exist in presentation but the navigation box is part of the basic format for the franchise and should be the same throughout.--Khajidha 11:38, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

Are you referring to the upper-right-hand template, the Transformers: War for Cybertron Games nav box? Man, that TOTALLY belongs up top. It provides quick, clear, concise and necessary context for the article as a whole. It instantly provides the important info that this article (and its subject) are not a stand-alone item, but part of a related series. -- Repowers 11:40, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

That's kinda what the introduction is supposed to do. And the fact that this is part of "a related series" should be evident by the disambiguation in the title and the fact that readers will be pointed towards this article by the main War for Cybertron article to start with. You are reiterating redundant information and useless links because you feel that readers are too retarded to grasp basic concepts. —Interrobang 15:05, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

Man, you're so totally right. Maybe we should ditch that logo, too. That's redundant. We say it right there in the text. Heck, it's in the URL and the HTML title field, too. Shit! Better get rid of those! And the "Transformers" part. I mean, duh, of course it's Transformers. Who doesn't know that? And the image, too. That's like, on some other page. And what's with that bold first-use-of-name thing? Do we think readers are too stupid to understand what they're reading about? Title in the info box, that should go. All the summary info in the info box, that should go. All that is in the text! After all, it's not like there's any visual component to the way your eye scans and navigates a page and absorbs the information from it. It should all be one giant undifferentiated block of text with zero redundancy!

I probably shouldn't sign this, since I just signed a post right above this, and who would be so stupid as to not realize it's me? But just in case -- Repowers 19:32, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

Jazz/Demolishor abilities and classes

'Cause I'm really cool, I'm knocking up a spreadsheet of each characters class, weapons, abilities, etc. Whilst I know all characters in Escalation default to the assault rifle, they still have an individual pair of abilities, and since I went for the Shockwave preorder, could anyone share Jazz and Demolishor's two abilities, and their given class? Cheers, Jalaguy

You might be better off asking a forum. Most of the users here aren't gamers. --FFN 06:12, 28 June 2010 (EDT)

Sonic Pain Wave

So, where can we put that? Since McFeely said that it's a mutliplayer-XP thing rather than a trophy/accomplishment. Under Trivia? --Lonegamer78 13:32, 16 July 2010 (EDT)

Molten

Should we begin making articles for the levels (such as Molten), we already have articles for each weapon. Also, if we do make an article for Molten would it be worth noting that there is what appears to be a cybertronian symbol shaped like a smiley face on all of the boxes?Omegatron 12:17, 22 July 2010 (EDT)

I would say no. They arn't real locations, just codenames for multiplayer arenas. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drayco90 (talk • contribs){{#if:23:13, 3 August 2010 (EDT)| 23:13, 3 August 2010 (EDT)|}}.

Do the arenas have descriptions of any kind? --abates 23:26, 3 August 2010 (EDT)

This is a bit old, but I think that making articles for the maps would be a good idea (after all, they are locations). Abates, some of the maps have been given descriptions in press releases, but I don't know if there's enough to make whole pages off of them. And instead of just giving all the multiplayer maps their own pages (since there might not be enough content), we can just stick them on a standard "Map (WFC)" page. -NCZ 14:28, 30 November 2010 (EST)

No DLC for PCs

The Wiki currently claims that the DLC characters are available for the PC version as well. This is not the case. Well, technically they might be, but the developer refuses to offer the ability to unlock them.[1]--Nevermore 10:49, 13 October 2010 (EDT)

Misc Credits

Writer: Dan Jolley. Additional writing: Daniel Arey. Voice direction and engineering: Keith Arem. Additional voices: Ed O'Ross.