Talk:Earth Eternal

Earth Eternal

- I am hoping others can add to this page as I don't know much about a game that hasn't been released yet. It's not my intent to advertise for this game, but it looks interesting so I thought I'd make a page about it and what's currently known. If anyone knows anything else about the game, feel free to add it in under an existing heading or a new one. If any criticism are added, I only ask they be fair, based on what's known about the game. Xmacro 18:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

- I wandered around the forums and found some tentative releases for the games classes and essentially copied them verbatim onto Wikipedia. If anyone from the Earth Eternal development team has a problem with this, or if I've violated something like copyright, please don't hesitate to amend the article. Xmacro 21:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

- I added in two maps I found on the Earth Eternal forums, making sure to state they weren't the final product and only early releases. If any more maps are released, please add them in as the two currently up seem to have been a quickie for the forum fans. Xmacro 03:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

- Added in future software disclaimer to heading and noted that Earth Eternal was going to have contiguous loading zones; should I forget, someone please just delete the {{{Future Software}}} header above the introduction when the game comes out.Xmacro 00:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Updates/changes

- Added info about Groves and updated to reflect current history releasesXmacro (talk) 02:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

- changed release date to 2008 from early 2008 to reflect the delay Xmacro (talk) 13:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

- Added in picture of Bremen townXmacro (talk) 19:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

- updated expected release - in interview, it was stated that the Groves will be released in late summer of 2008 and the game will be released in late 2008, early 2009 Xmacro 23:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

- added in that the game will be brower based and Download, as well as mentioning higher quality graphics than RuneScape Xmacro (talk) 18:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

- added an info box, but not much to put in it yet Xmacro (talk) 00:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

- changed release date to 2009 - on the forums, game director refuses to give any sort of release date, so it'se highly unlikely to be released anytime this year; game director also said Groves wouldn't be released before the game (guess he changed his mind)Xmacro (talk) 22:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

- added EE logo, pic may need to be resized tho' Xmacro (talk) 22:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

- changed pic of sneak at night to one with multiple characters at night; thought it helped show the diversity of characters and classes available to the player, as well as the nice lighting of the pic in the background Xmacro (talk) 14:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

- Added picture of a feline sneak at night to at flavor to article and let people see what gameworld looks like a bitXmacro 20:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

- added that game is only supported on XP/Vista at launch, modified game box in upper right corner, added in bit of info about clans, etc Xmacro (talk) 17:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

- I saw that some info was out of date, so I updated a few things, namely the number of player races and a few of the links. I added in news of the beta launch, and put in a link for the player races. Xmacro (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

- Added info about sale to CNN of game assets unknown 21:58, 1 Oct 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.134.179 (talk)

Fan websites

- to anyone thinking of it, please don't put your fan sites on here - they aren't authoritative sources, and they don't have any info that isn't already provided on the Earth Eternal forums. The least you can do is wait 'til the game is released and you have something to put on your site that isn't on the earth eternal website(tips, tricks, hints, etc)Xmacro (talk) 00:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

- I just removed another fansite from the article. To anyone else thinking of it - you aren't 'official' in any way, nor is your clan. Wikipedia is not an advertising venue. Xmacro (talk) 15:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

- For the second time, there's no such thing as an 'official' clan. First off, the game devs haven't endorsed anyone,and second - since the game isn't released, no clans even exist. It's just a bunch of roleplayer's until the game is released. 68.200.23.58 ([[User talk Xmacro (talk) 21:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

- I don't see any need for a fansite section. Correct me if I'm wrong, but World of Warcraft doesn't have a fansite section, nor does Everquest, nor does Runescape - no MMO on Wikipedia has a section for fansites, which can rise and fall in a matter of days, and don't seem to warrant inclusion in a source such as Wikipedia. There are other Wiki's devoted to Earth Eternal and MMO's in general that incorporate fansites, but Wikipedia doesn't seem to allow fansites in their pillars of use. Xmacro (talk) 23:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

New website

- added in part mentioning that a new website is up with new info - otherwise nothing else has changed. I know that a lot of the info on this Wikipedia page is out-dated and may be wrong, but the game developers have not confirmed or denied anything yet; so whatever is up there is the best guess based on whatever info has been released Xmacro (talk) 20:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

- Modified box in right corner to state that game is Download and/or browser based. Also added mention that new history chapters have been released and 6 more races are comingXmacro (talk) 16:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Furry

"Earth Eternal has been criticized for promoting Furry Fandom" What's wrong with Furry Fandom? Sounds like the person who wrote this sentance is comparing it to pedofila or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by -OOPSIE- (talk • contribs) 16:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Nothings wrong with furry fandom but the instances of yiff on Furcadia carry many negative connotations, and it's hoped that none of that will carry over to Earth Eternal. I've edited it to show more the distinction between furry fandom and yiffy Xmacro (talk) 02:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Moreover: criticized by whom, exactly? There are no references. --24.80.163.219 (talk) 07:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

go look around internet forums - the game is widely criticized and mocked for the furries its bound to attract. I didn't add any references because I'd only be citing forum threads and anonymous posters. The reason I included this is because its a criticism thats been floating around quite a bit and should be mentioned since Wikipedia is a neutral source Xmacro (talk) 22:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is also a source that requires citations, though. I've tagged it as unsourced material. --24.80.163.219 (talk) 04:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Though, I guess that's a bit redundant considering the whole article is currently unsourced. --24.80.163.219 (talk) 04:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Overhaul to Furry Criticism

- I rewrote the entire section on the Furry Fandom to portray it in a more of a positive light. If it were up to me, I would have removed the entire section about them but no one really seemed to go for that. If anyone wants to revert it back to its original state, post why you think it should go back but previously, the section seemed very negative towards the Fandom. Any game can have cybersex in it and a game with anthros in it isn't going to change that. Niazac (talk) 21:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I would have removed it a long time ago, but I clearly have a bias point of view here. I rewrote it the first time (it has been rewritten multiple times) trying to only change the wording and not the meaning. I have basically avoided editing that section since. It is much clearer as to what is being asserted but still no definitive source... :( RP9 (talk) 06:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I've changed it a bit. I think your revisions were very good, but I'm worried about giving the article any kind of spin. While I agree the previous version was slanted (and no one could figure out how to balance it), I don't want this section to be positive either - bias is bias is bias, whether it's positive bias or negative bias. Furries get unfair criticism, but it's criticism nontheless. All I did was delete a few weasel words. All in all, I think your revision is the best version we've had yet. Xmacro (talk) 22:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, you're revisions to the section are a lot better than what I had put originally. I just wish we had some more definite sources to stick in there. Niazac (talk) 07:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I referenced most of the article a while back, but unfortunately could not find a source for it. At least not one that supports it directly. Matt Mihaly has expressed his disapproval of this criticism in this interview and elsewhere. Of course this does not support the criticism it self, just his disapproval of it. However, it could be used to expand on the details of the criticism. p.s. It is a good thing that Xmacro is here, considering that after reading the section, I did not realize that calling the media bias is kinda bias. :) RP9 (talk) 11:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Criticisms and furries

- to whoever deleted it - leave the criticism section alone unless you can source it better. You may not like it, but the fact that many furries find this game attractive is a major source of derision that you find on forums and the like. It's a fact that furries are drawn to a game like this, and it's a fact that people have mocked the game because of those furry fans. I've made the best effort I can to keep this neutral and free of bias, so leave the section alone unless you're improving it. Just because you don't like the current criticism floating around online doesn't mean you can ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist. Xmacro (talk) 03:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Ironically, according to Wikipedia's policy on verifiability, that is exactly what we should do: "ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist." :P I have avoided removing the section partly because I think such a section should exist, but citing a particular blog or forum is as bad or worse then plain weasel words (all it says is that this person said that) and stating the collective opinion of forum posts if even possible would be original research. More than likely, the section was removed because of this. As I mentioned before, criticism especially needs to be written such that it is verifiable and in the neutral point of view. RP9 (talk) 06:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I feel compelled to edit the Criticisms sections but instead will just ask here. Saying "as some of the Player races are of an anthropomorphic genre." seams misleading to me. Could you explain what you are trying to clarify here? The game being "of an anthropomorphic genre" does not mean all the races have to be anthropomorphic, just that the game takes a particular focus on it.

Also, should "furry fan bias" be changed to "media bias" or "their public perception"? RP9 (talk) 06:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I changed it to 'some of the Player races' because with the recent additions, it can't be said that all the races are anthropomorphic, since most of the 6 new ones are more fantasy-oriented. I was just nit-picking the grammar.

Sorry for the slow response, had finals this week. I will say what I said before "The game being of an anthropomorphic genre does not mean all the races have to be anthropomorphic." Sort of like in a stealth game you are not always avoiding detection or in a shooter game you are not always trying to shoot things or in a puzzle game you are not always solving puzzles. The idea is that it is a major focus or characteristic of the game. Also Matt Mihaly has specifically described the game as an "anthro" game, which is presumably being used as a shorthand for anthropomorphic. However I am not entirely sure what he means here considering that "anthro" like "furry" is a fandom derived slang term (it came into common usage in the early 1990s). Just a thought. RP9 (talk) 21:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure about changing the 'furry fan bias', and here's why - by changing it to 'media bias', then we most certainly have to point to some media source, which creates a hassle. Changing it to 'their public perception' makes it seem like none of the furry criticisms are valid, when in fact the criticisms are true/valid, if unduly harsh/insulting. I'm just wary of being so pre-occupied with non-offensiveness, that the language changes from neutral to non-neutral. I'm worried the language will change from describing furries in a neutral sense, into an attack on those who criticize them. Words like 'public perception' or 'media bias' are slanted to discredit those who criticize and make the furries seem innocent of anything, when in fact they, like mainstream culture as well as every other subculture, are deserving of criticisms in some form or another.Xmacro (talk) 00:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

That's funny considering that I thought saying "furry fan bias" made it seem like the criticism was just due to misconceptions and had no empirical validity. And that by saying 'their public perception' it would better explain why this it thought to be true. But now that I read it again it would be best to just not say anything about why they think this because we do not know why any particular person thinks this is true and saying so would be original research. However as far as media sources go, trust me I've got plenty.

p.s. The part where you said "I'm worried the language will change from describing furries in a neutral sense, into an attack on those who criticize them." made me laugh. :) RP9 (talk) 21:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Criticism section and 'weasal words'

- I erased the 'weasel words' warning because there was no jsutification given for it. If someone thinks the criticism section is misleading, then change it to a neutral POV, but otherwise I see nothing wrong with it. It's a criticism section - it's supposed to give an unfavorable view/criticism of the game, as well as a response to that criticism. If you don't like it, then propose some alternative, rather than putting up a 'weasal word' banner and leaving 68.200.23.58 (talk) 17:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Mind you, I did not add the template I just fixed it. However it was more then likely added because "...it has been stated Earth Eternal is a second, larger version of Furcadia" are weasel words. Who said that? When? How many people think that? (see WP:AWW) Also the wording is misleading. How do you promote Furry Fandom? What does that mean in this case? Using the slang word yiff to describe "mature elements" is also a rather strange prose. RP9 (talk) 20:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh and the same applies to "Earth Eternal has been criticized for..." Again by whom? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RP9 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I used those words because most of this sort of discussion has been talked about on forums, so there really isn't any place to cite; if there were a credible source I'd cite it. I realize the current state of the criticism section is very undesireable, but I don't see any alternative - the largest criticism against the game are that it'll draw furries, lead to yiffing, and eventually drown out the RPer's and casual players; these criticisms are made by anonymous posters on constantly-shifting forums. I know the criticisms are largely invalid, because the game developers have stated they intend to target the younger audience, and make a family-friendly game; but I'm still in the predicament of making a balanced article of a game who's only source is the developers website. If you have any suggestions for correcting or improving the section, please don't hesitate to fix the section and make it balanced. I couldn't think of anything better to write than what you see; I know the criticisms are unsourced and invalid, but the only way I could find to make a completely sourced article would be to omit the criticisms entirely.68.200.23.58 (talk) 20:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I reworded the paragraph to be more clear. But I am effectively trying to improve criticism directed at my self, so I hope I am not bias. These are still weasel words however, even if it is just forum posts something needs to be cited. RP9 (talk) 01:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The section looks much better thanks to the changes you made; thanks for all the work. Xmacro (talk) 16:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

- I would like to suggest that the first criticism get taken down until sourced by someone/something other than the writer of the article (and message boards; not allowed) based on the premise that in ANY virtual work, there is a prospect of cybersex. This can happen in WoW, Final Fantasy, and any other number of MMOs. Is it needed to remind people that people are sexual creatures in every MMO? I think not. Additionally "anthropomorphic" character are present in every game. Anything that is non-human in appearance is an anthropomorphized concept of something (including plants, gods, and machines). So, if the writer of the article wishes to use this term, it is my thought that the word needs to be linked to it's proper article to prevent confusion. It is not only limited to the fury fandom[1], as the article even suggests[2]. But in doing so, I also would believe it demonstrates that the first article in the criticism section is not only weasly but opinionated until sourced by an independent source (and not a message board as those do not count under the standards).75.42.215.141 (talk) 18:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that is should probably be removed. But then again, why wouldn't I? Any other editors agree? RP9 (talk) 07:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Major revision

Reorganized the entire article, added a few details, rewrote a few and I also removed most of the Tentative classes section. The article needs more gameplay detail and more info about the plot, particularly the story be hide Earth Eternal. Also the Criticisms section needs sources and more detail. RP9 (talk) 07:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

4 things:

1) http://www.mpogd.com/news/?ID=3059 <--- game developer, Matt Mihaly, talks about the furry issue and how Sparkplay will handle it. I added it in, so the Criticism section is now sourced

2) I added the Classes section back in and re-organized the article a bit. I added the Classes section back in because, while the developers have said they're changing the classes around a bit, they've never refuted the classes as they currently stand. All they've done is hint at changes, but nothing concrete has ever been said. As such, I feel that although the current class descriptions are inaccurate, they're better than haveing a gaping hole in the article. As soon as the real class descriptions are released, by all means, tear down teh current description, but until then, the current description is all that has ever been said on classes.

3) I re-organized the article so it flows better. I feel that the Plot/Setting should come first, to acquiant the reader with Earth eternal's premise/story. Then the Game Development section should follow - since the game has not been released, readers should know where the game has been and where it currently stands (once the game is released, this section should be relegated toward the bottom of the article). I then put the Classes section in, to tell the reader what the currently known state of the game is, followed by Clans/Groves.

4) I'll add in the story later, unless someone else beats me to it. There's a lot to cover, so I'll add something in and tinker with it a bit. I feel a story section should be the first thing a reader sees, the better to get a 'feel' for Earth eternal before reading about the rest of the gameplayXmacro (talk) 15:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

1- This is a good source, in fact it is already in the ref-list, but it can not be used here because is does not cite the criticism, only Matt Mihaly's opinion on the criticism. We still know nothing except that Matt Mihaly thinks it is ridiculous and according to him some hardcore MMORPG fans think this. This would however be a great source for a counterargument.

2- ... See below

3- Section order is rather cosmetic as long as there is a TOC, however I agree.

4- Hehe That is why I did not do it; too much writing. That would really help the article though. RP9 (talk) 19:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I cut down the classes; as I thought about it, the current description was far too specific for something that has undoubtedly changed a great deal since it was first talked about. By cutting the class descriptions down to basics, I beleive that the current description will give a 'feel' for the classes, without being too inaccurate or misleading.Xmacro (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

That is precisely why I removed it, it goes into far too much detail while the rest of the article does not. Brief descriptions of each class are fine but remember that Wikipedia is not a strategy guide. RP9 (talk) 19:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The reason why it went into detail and the rest of the article didn't was because that was the only area that the developers had ever gotten semi-specific about; it was detailed because it was the most accurate description released of the classes. I see your point - the classes went in-depth, describing things that would help guide a Player into choosing a Class while the rest of the article dealt in vagaries. My point is that certain sections of this article are going to come out piece-meal; more info may be released on classess tomorrow (for all we know), while actual gameplay mechanics aren't released for months. I plan to keep the article updated as info comes out - this may mean that some sections are far more specific than others, but that will only be temporary, until more info is released and the entire article can become more specific.Xmacro (talk) 00:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh no... I completely agree with what you are saying. Allow me to be more explicit. What I meant was, regardless of how much detail a particular section goes into, it should start out with the basics, then go into detail. Before, the section listed details that would be unfamiliar to someone who has never played a game like Earth Eternal. RP9 (talk) 06:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not much, but I found an article that states that Earth Eternal is going to attract furry fans, leading to ppl coming over from Furcadia Xmacro (talk) 00:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Ugh... let me first say, I like how the story section is coming... good job! But I really do not like the criticism section. Criticism tends to be someone's opinion and therefor has to be written so that the article is not making unfounded claims about it. Take a look at the criticism section of GNU GPL for a great example of how it should be written. RP9 (talk) 06:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It is full of unfounded claims to be sure, but there just isn't that much known about the game. Once it's released the entire article will have to be heavily modified of course, as well as the criticism section; but for now, the only criticism of the game is on anonymous forums - people who surf the net will find these criticisms, but it's hard to pin any of them down, especially since the criticism is coming from people who haven't played the game or have any inkling of what it's about. I'm just stumped as to how to word the criticism section so as to air the criticisms in a credible way, but also allow for a rebuttal.Xmacro (talk) 19:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources

Added a few hopefully reliable sources. This is my first attempt at sourcing an article so point out anything I did wrong. RP9 (talk) 04:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources look great - you really pulled the article together very well Xmacro (talk) 16:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is a good editorial about Earth Eternal. RP9 (talk) 07:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Writing the back story

- I've started writing the backstory; will write more later. I'm skipping over a lot of it and am only going to cover the larger points in the history (Mystarchs, Rise of Man, etc), so there's plenty that's going to be left out; there's just too much story to cover it all, so I'm going to just cover enough to give the reader a sense of where the Beasts have been, who the enemies are, who they're supposed to be loyal to and who they're supposed to oppose, etc Xmacro (talk) 00:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

- History was too much to handle, so I copied it wholsale (verbatim) from Earth Eternal's website. The site supplies a summary of each section of the history, so I copy/pasted that and edited a few parts. I think I sourced it properly, but I'm not sure if I properly credited the source and avoided plagiarism. I added in a reference notation, you can find it under 'Game Lore' in the reference section at the bottom of the article Xmacro (talk) 18:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Naughty, naughty... Take a peek at WP:COPYVIO. :D RP9 (talk) 20:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I reverted it because it's not a copyright violation - you can't have an infringement on something that isn't copyrighted. The story was written by Spark Play, but I don't think the story even HAS the copyright (since parts of the story itself borrows from other stories). So I don't think it's a violation. I'm copying someone elses work verbatim, but the thing I'm copying is a summary of a larger story, and neither the summary nor the story itself are copyrighted - so I'm reverting it. Besides - the developers wrote the summary for ppl who don't want to read the entire 140 pg history, and they posted it online in an easy to read/copy format, so they intend it to be read by potential users before the games release. Xmacro (talk) 23:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The story and the summary of the story are copyrighted. Sparkplay Media does not need to do anything for it to be protected by copyright, their work just has to qualify for copyright. You can only copy their work if they give you permission and you can only post it on Wikipedia if it is licensed under a GFDL compatible license. Please do not revert it back. RP9 (talk) 15:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Copyright of Story/Plot - permission attained

- Author has given permissino to copy the summary of the story verbatim, and he's given permission to publish it on Wikipedia so long as proper credit is given - see link here: http://www.eartheternal.com/forums/Story/topics/Question-for-author-of-the-story

I've copy/pasted the summary verbatim, with no changes other than deciding where the paragraphs begin/end Xmacro (talk) 15:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Be very careful about doing this. A few points need to be addressed.

• Is the author fully aware that content submitted to Wikipedia must be licensed under a GFDL-compatible license? And if so, which one?

- to my knowledge, yes, he is aware of this

Which license? RP9 (talk) 01:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• It needs to be written in the real-world perspective in order to be encyclopedic.

- please explain more - it's a fantasy story, so I'm not sure what you mean when you say it needs a real-world perspective?

See WP:WAF#Real-world_perspective RP9 (talk) 01:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• We should know what is going on but we don't need to know every detail. See Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary

This actually is a very short summary of the story - the full thing is over 140 pgs, and this summary was created by the author to give a concise idea of the story; there are parts of the story (like the bit about the Spirit mother) that will bear on the game when it is released/they explain why things are the way they are

There is about 2000 words in the plot section which only contains the story. For perspective Chrono Trigger has 878 words and Metroid Prime has 650 words both of which are featured articles. RP9 (talk) 01:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• Write it avoiding the use of we.

I'm hesitant to do this because it may alter the story; it's intended to be read by players in-game, hence the 'we'. If 'we' is eliminated, what would the replacement perspective be?

We implies the characters are talking to you, the same works with I or you. Imagine an article on the sky: "We know the sky is blue. But you, like most people probably do not know why. I know it is because the atmosphere scatters blue light more than red light." Instead: "It is known that the sky is blue. But according to some study many do not know why. It is because the atmosphere scatters blue light more than red light." RP9 (talk) 01:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• The plot is not just a summery of the events of a story. The setting should be concisely described for instance.

The Metroid Prime article is a good example of a condensed plot. Also Chrono Trigger is a very good (and very long) example of the plot with subsections, describing the setting and characters as well as the story. RP9 (talk) 00:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

- as stated above, the summary given is a summary of a massive story, so the summary as it currently is, is actually a good summary in comparison.

- See above Xmacro (talk) 16:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Open Beta

- I'll be adding things in as open beta begins; I made this section to accomodate the new edits. To everyone else, please don't post information breaking the NDA until Open Beta starts 67.79.170.194 (talk) 20:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

- I changed a few words from "will" to "is", to reflect the fact that the game is now in open beta and playable Xmacro (talk) 16:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Removed criticisms

Noting that this has either been removed or changed more than a few times (seems like 7 or 8 times), I think it is appropriate to say that this is contentious and as such, it needs a reliable source per WP:V that is about this criticism. Certain sources make mention of Furry fandom, for instance the gamebunny interview asks "Are you sick of the snickering jokes and comments yet regarding ‘Furries’ and their possible attraction to the game?". Commentary about Matt Mihaly's response to this question could be added to the article reflecting its relevance (taking due consideration of undue weight) but generalisations like "many people" and "some claim" breach WP:NPOV and often WP:OR. The criticisms should generally mention specific people making these claims, making neutral assessments of the claims, and so forth. RP9 (talk) 05:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Races of Earth Eternal

They hype that they have 22 races in the game, but there is only ONE RACE up to now. They are all identical in the game and have nothing different other than their looks. No racial skills, items, stats adjustment, skill adjustment, just a big nothing.

Also, the game offers nothing new to the genre, it is even primitive dating back before World of Warcraft like in the late 1990s and year 2000. But the story and background story is original, no annoying elves, dwarfs, humans and all that "clique" that unimaginative game designers use.

Fortunately the game is still in beta mode, so maybe they will add racial features to the game and make it a modern game too because now, it is on the path to being shut down before it is launched as a full game due to its primitive design and false races among a few other things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.23.209.46 (talk) 00:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

-- There are 22 races. There are 22 different names for 22 characters that though they share body builds, have different places to edit the colours and different heads. There are no racial bonuses so that players may choose any race they wish without being hindered by their class. A system like this allows them to add more races, and they have made it clear they will not ever add racial bonuses. So theres that. Also, i'm not sure what that has to do with the Wikipedia article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.161.227.78 (talk) 22:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Plot section rewrite

I took the existing summary from the game website's "Lore" section and summarized that, leaving what I think is a sufficient amount of information for this Wikipedia article. I changed the section's title from "Plot" to "Setting," because a plot section would normally reflect the plot of the game's actual action, while the existing section instead detailed the history of the world in which the game takes place. I have only completed the Corsica missions, but I plan to write a new plot section containing information about them; it seems to me that the game's plot consists of the storyline the player character goes through in the actual game, i.e., investigating the plant monsters, deactivating the shard of Djall's Hammer, and thwarting the Anubian invasion. --DavidK93 (talk) 17:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Earth Eternal takeover

- I searched for eartheternal.com in WHOIS records, and found that the website was owned by Turner Broadcasting System Inc. does this qualify as a valid source? WERETIGER (talk) 22:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Earth Eternal Reboot

So, with Earth Eternal dead and gone, the main programmer of the game sent my friend a copy of the source code and they configured it on my friend's server, http://www.eartheternalreboot.com/ . However, that link was removed as a potential violation of WP:VG/EL, and I'm not overly interested in violating Wikipedia rules. I just feel that this makes it a semi-official continuation at the very least. The server's been up for over two years without a single issue or copyright complaint from whoever owns the copyright (if they even still exist). I'd like to hear a sort of consensus from the Wikipedia community before I take any action on re-adding the link to the External Links section. If you think this is more appropriate for the article's twin on WikiFur, then that's fine. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 03:22, 30 May 2016 (UTC)