Talk:Transformers: War for Cybertron (games)

Why are we linking to the G1 characters? I thought this was supposed to be something new. Dead Metal 04:10, 11 December 2009 (EST)

There's really no way of knowing for sure until we have more information about the storyline and characters. --KilMichaelMcC 14:20, 11 December 2009 (EST)

I really, really doubt they won't be Primax characters, new continuity or not. --ItsWalky 14:50, 11 December 2009 (EST)

Agree that's that most likely the case. But I do sort of wonder if maybe this game is going to end up being some sort of prequel-y tie-in to the new cartoon/franchise that's coming. --KilMichaelMcC 18:15, 11 December 2009 (EST)

It does seem like a seperate continuity

I mean, seriously different. Should we ask Hasbro?

Well, not sure about asking Hasbro, we'll know soon enough one way or the other. But IMO, bad information is worse than no information. Assuming that these guys are G1 is just that - an assumption. We should tread lightly. --Jimsorenson 18:29, 11 December 2009 (EST)

They use the G1 logo, Cybertron's from Alpha Centauri, and the roster includes only G1 dudes. I'd say "assumption" isn't really strong enough of a word. --ItsWalky 18:52, 11 December 2009 (EST)

I think we should wait for a confirmation that it's a G1 universe before making assumptions. The roster so far only includes G1 dudes. If we made that assumption, the movieverse would be part of G1 (early on only G1 based characters were announced. It could simply be like animated and it references things heavily. User:Eire 16.03 Dec 15 09 (OUTC)

The TFW2005 interview states it's "not connected to any particular generation" and that this will be the foundation for newer sub-franchises. That does indicate this isn't G1 but yet another continuity. Charles RB 16:31, 23 December 2009 (GMT)

It would certainly seem to. --Jimsorenson 11:44, 23 December 2009 (EST)

Alrighty. Hopefully at some point we'll have a good parenthetical for this new continuity ... family. --ItsWalky 11:46, 23 December 2009 (EST)

How about "WFC"? User:ThiAthEhn

I agree. It has been stated in interviews that this is a new continuity and the character designs seem to be taking influence from a number of previous incarnations; mostly War Within, Transformers Animated and the live-action movies. It would be difficult to make the case that these are meant to be direct variations on the G1 characters. I second the idea of using "WFC" to classify them. Clifftothemax 10:17, 19 January 2010 (GMT)

This IS a diffrent continuity- IGN Preview "Freed from the constraints of a movie license, the new Transformers game lives within its own universe." The TWF2005 preview and interview, multiple times in Game Informer's articles and alot in the Podcast on the same site. It's just heavily inspired by G1. I didn't want to change anything because I don't want to start an edit war over this. Drayco90 17:23, 16 January 2010 (EST)

Something can still be a new universe while being part of an existing continuity family. Henkei! Henkei! was a new universe that was still G1, as was Classics and the IDW stuff. What's important to the wiki is whether this will be a new continuity family, not just strictly a new universe. New universes happen all the time. New continuity families are much more rare. --ItsWalky 10:37, 19 January 2010 (EST)

The thing is, it is (and always has been) a bit of a subjective value judgement alot of the time. How much similarity to G1 do we need to make something definately G1? Or does it work the other way? How big a New Element (minicons, cyberkeys,) do we need to make it difinitively it's own ConFam? Authorial intent definately has to be part of it too. Anything that specifically calls itself G1 is obvious, and anything that seems to be trying to pick up the original G1 characters/situations themselves even if it's in new forms or directions, alla IDW (although even that can be tricky to judge, agaiin HOW MUCH change makes a break?)... When we have as little info as we do right now on WfC it's almost impossible to judge what it will become. Do we have an editorial policy (and if not should we?) saying "Something new that seems G1-ish IS, until we see differences enough to prove it's not," or vice-versa "anything new is to be considered it's own continuity until we've seen enough to feel if it's G1-continuity family?" A set plan either way might make these situations a bit less random in the future. Maybe?--76.28.76.206 10:48, 19 January 2010 (EST)

The New trailer

should we make a summary of the trailer?--Defect 14:25, 12 January 2010 (EST)

The link to the trailer is probably enough. A play-by-play would be a bit excessive. --ItsWalky 14:27, 12 January 2010 (EST)

Logos

I'm guessing the answer is no, but have the developers released any images of the characters on a white background that we can use to make some logos for the Main Page? I know we're not sure who the characters are yet, but we can link them to the WFC page for now. --abates 14:34, 13 January 2010 (EST)

No. --ItsWalky 15:13, 13 January 2010 (EST)

Of course, the current logo doesn't look too bad on the main page.--Rosicrucian^Talk 15:14, 13 January 2010 (EST)

I think he means the center TFwiki one with the rotating characters. If we want to cut people out of screencaps with photoshop, we could probably add some WfC ones to the rotation. --ItsWalky 15:21, 13 January 2010 (EST)

I cropped a WfC out of his concept art and inserted him into the rotation. --ItsWalky 15:59, 13 January 2010 (EST)

Awesome! --abates 16:08, 13 January 2010 (EST)

And a Megatron. --ItsWalky 16:10, 13 January 2010 (EST)