Talk:The Matrix Online/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Entirely too much exposition for a game nobody plays

This entry's game-plot/storyline is longer than the combined entries for the plot/storylines of all three movies. A few hundred fans of the game may care about its story, but this sort of overly detailed plot exposition doesn't belong in a Wikipedia article. Smells like fans trying to save a dying game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KymBarrett2 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, though before seeing this section I was going to suggest splitting it off into a separate article to satisfy those who disagree. I think we need a little more discussion and consensus before coming to a decision, however. --iTocapa ^t 00:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Honestly I don't there is any need to "satisfy" anyone who is not content with it. The cruft is barely (if at all) notable enough to be in this article. Never mind its own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oni Ookami Alfador (talk • contribs) 00:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think obvious personal bias against this (or any game for that matter) should be a motivator for any article changes. Villemar —Preceding comment was added at 07:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The obvious personal bias of a few overzealous gamers is the reason the article's so bloated with trivial data to begin with. I'm with Ookami, this game just plain isn't notable enough to warrant a chapter by chapter breakdown of its storyline. That's what fan sites are for. TGirl29 (talk) 20:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Just checked the World of Warcraft page out of curiosity, and even it doesn't have this much detailed story description. In fact it barely has any, and I don't think anyone can argue which of the two games is more notable. Also someone further up the page here brought this issue up already under 'generic story', why is this still being allowed?TGirl29 (talk) 20:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I play this game, I could care less that the huge exposition was taken out. That was an absolutely ridiculous story summary; most of the people that play the game couldn't tell you half of it. However, to kill the previous, argument, WoW barely has a story, while the Matrix Online's main content and selling point is the story. We don't need a 20 paragraph summary like before. A mention that there have been past live events, as well as a 4 sentence or so story summary, should suffice. I'd challenge one of you to do it, as I don't think any of you know anything about the game in the current state, besides that it is much weaker than World of Warcraft. Starofsports4 (talk) 22:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

To clarify my point above, I think the storyline section is very good now, it does, however, need the slightest mention of what has happened. Starofsports4 (talk) 22:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Just for clarification, the game's main selling point was not the story itself, but that the players would be shaping the story, which never happened. And WoW has plenty of story, enough to fill reams of Wikipages, it's just that it doesn't belong here in that great of detail. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a novel.TGirl29 (talk) 04:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, since there seems to be some rough consensus that this is well overdone, and that there has been no real objection to it, and pending the fact that no one with the adequate experience within the game has stepped forward to trim it down and keep whatever are the key points, I'm going to purge it.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 05:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Per the anon-IP user's objection in the page history of the main article... It doesn't matter. Its that simple. The story is WP:CRUFT, is a broken part of an already barely notable game , and the fact that something cannot be fixed, or that no one is willing to, does not mean you have to keep it in its current state. Sometimes broken things have to be thrown in the garbage.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 05:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thought I'd just throw this in here as a fan and player of the game, that I liked coming to this page to reference certain aspects I may have forgotten about the game or its story. While there are certain aspects which certainly had little to do with the game and should have been done away with (i.e. the rumors section which included a nice little unnecessary paragraph about an unimportant player-liaison named TaeCross). But mostly what I'd like to say is that Wikipedia is an encycolopedia, and it is the duty of an encyclopedia to contain knowledge relevant to certain subjects, which is what I feel most of the deleted content was. What's the point in slimming it down, anyhow? If someone would like to learn about the game, they will be able to read as much as they like and learn as much as they like. If they don't want to learn about the game and its many story-based facets, why read the article to begin with? Put simply, a vast amount of knowledge is suprior to a lack of it, and I see no need to limit the content of the page. I'd ask that you restore it. Hell, I'd do it myself if I didn't believe you'd just reverse it in a milisecond. -Neoteny 70.44.74.185 (talk) 08:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with Neoteny. It is a good refresher, and whilst it's not supposed to be a novel, it is still necessary for one to understand what is happening. Extra knowledge is better than lack of it. Bring it back. -Bubz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.148.55.215 (talk) 09:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

This crap is not the "duty" of any encyclopedia. Your argument that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia is exactly WHY it shouldn't be included. Some level of restraint and notability has to be adhered to. WP:FICT goes over this. If someone were willing to take the time to actually edit the section, slim it down so its readable and not a long winded diatribe maybe it could be included but right now its so god awful excessive (its way the hell bigger than the rest of the article) the only reasonable solution is to nuke it off the page. As far as inclusion for the sake of inclusion, please see WP:NOT for the relevant sections on being a list of indiscriminate information.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 14:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that the content should be included in some capacity. Maybe not part of the explanation of the MMO game itself. That should just explain the game mechanics and references to other material. The story is valuable, for it is a continuation of the matrix universe. It should be placed on it's own outside of this page, or modified greatly to be included. However it has some value and should be used efficently. Wrath89 (talk) 19:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Its DEFINITELY not notable enough to get a whole separate page. As for including it here, time and time again its been stated that if someone with knowledge on the subject wanted to trim it down they could but no one bothered to step up. As bloated and useless as it is now it doesn't belong here.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 19:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Although the recent site addition was unneccesary, by now, I think it's hilarious that some of you care so much about pulling out pieces from "a game nobody plays." If it isn't important, why do you monitor this thing so much? I was almost ready to help out, but I think the actions by the people constantly removing things while not putting any effort to actually contribute themselves is an embarrassment. Starofsports4 (talk) 02:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

You're entitled to feel the way you do, but it doesn't change the fact that it is a useless addition that clutters up the article. There are rules that cover this. Read the following from WP:FICT:

Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot. A brief plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic.

Since there has been a demonstrated lack of self control in keeping said summary "brief," I don't think there's any hope for it. The lazy editors you should be focusing your complaints towards are the ones who could be working on it but choose instead to whine about it being taken out.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 20:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The header says it all. Since the response to a supposed "bloated" storyline section was complete removal rather than revision, it's patently obvious that some people have a personal bias against the game, which I would guess haven't played the game. Anyone who has played the game understands that this game is heavily storyline-driven. No mention even of the intent of the creators of the Matrix Trilogy themselves that this is to be considered a continuation of the Matrix storyline! It's as if some random company (SOE) just got the franchise rights to a movie and based a game around it with no input from the creators. SOME form of storyline summation is helpful for people who want to know the basics about this game. That's the whole point of Wikipedia, no? Villemar —Preceding comment was added at 22:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you people take the advice and write a brief summary paragraph of the game's story? Ookami has tried several times to point you in that direction, and you continue to ignore him and complain. Nobody's trying to destroy your little game, they're just trying to maintain Wikipedia policy. Stop with the conspiracy theory crap. Also, don't overplay your hand, it doesn't help your case. A few gamers may have bought into that advertising gimmick about a 'continuing story', but nobody else did. In fact, there should be a disclaimer in the article that what was advertised and what came to be are two different things, otherwise the article is just plain misleading. There's a reason the hundreds of millions of Matrix fans aren't in here complaining that the story was removed.TGirl29 (talk) 08:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It's quite obvious that those of you who don't play the game, or just plain want to see the game fail, are the ones that are vehemently opposing the storyline section. You can NOT summarize the story of the Matrix Online in one paragraph. One paragraph for each chapter would be acceptable. It seems as if this Ookami person has something against the game, which you can tell by the way she constantly belittles it. The game continues to receive subscribers and content is constantly being added. A dying game would not receive the attention that it does from it's developers. As the storyline is a HUGE factor of the game, the summary of it should not have been deleted. As for whether or not you believe it's the 'continuing story', that's not up to you to decide. The W Brothers stated that the game was the continuation and the story canon. Period. Ookami is someone that probably had a bad experience in the game (perhaps banned or got butthurt about missing out on a reward) and wants to take out her hurt feelings the only way that she can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.65.56.200 (talk) 17:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This argument is futile, as is evident by the fact that you couple of fanboys have resorted to personal attacks against Ookami simply because you don't like WP or your arguments don't hold water or whatever. This time, I'M removing it, and will continue to do so until it meets the criteria set forth in WP:FICT, WP:CRUFT, and WP:NOT. Write a proper summary or leave it alone; repeatedly reverting under the pretense of 'doing it later' is fooling nobody.KymBarrett2 (talk) 03:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

i second the above —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.105.56.139 (talk) 10:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Full Disclosure

Since some people insist on making it an issue, though I'm not sure why, I'll discuss my involvements here. I have played the game. I do not play the game anymore. I harbor no negative feelings towards the game. Why did I leave? because I have only so much leisure time and I wanted to try out some other MMO games. Why am I so vehement about this? Well, that's going to require a nice numbered list.

1. Wikipedia is full of crap like this.
2. I am familiar with this game specifically (though not many of the more recent plot details) so I feel I can say without creative license that this section is excessive.
3. The arguments for keeping it are frivolous. Nonsense or useless arguments equivalent to "its neat so it should stay," "other articles have sections this big," and "it's important" (no reasons are ever provided why the storyline, especially outlined in so much detail, is important to the article, only that it is. Prove don't assert.

--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 07:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)do not take away my latest change i am very familar with the matrix series and i would appreciate if you didnt erase my changes.

Dont erase my changes about matrix online! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.65.173.56 (talk) 16:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC) I said keep my changes alone. It is a spinoff like i wrote! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.65.173.56 (talk) 11:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC) If take away my changes one more time i will report it to wikipedia!!!!!!!!!

A SPINOFF?! The Matrix Online is a CONTINUATION of the Matrix saga, a bit like the Expanded Universe for Star Wars (though nowhere near as "expanded"). Even if you don' agree with this, there's no denying the fact that the Matrix Online is part of the Matrix franchise, AND the plot of the Matrix Online is not found anywhere else. Therefore it's a SEPARATE piece of work, UNLIKE the Star Wars Expanded Universe, which is a COLLECTION of works. I believe that the plot SHOULD be mentioned somewhere, and if it cannot be mentioned on Wikipedia a link to an external site should be provided. Wikipedia aims to be COMPLETE, so there's no reason why something as simple as an external link can't be provided if the information.

By the way, don't report people unless a) you're sure that you're right and b) the problem cannot be resolved otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vistafreak (talk • contribs) 10:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

"official", "canon", etc?

I'm not ready to 'be bold', but obviously someone keeps trying to alter it and its always confused me anyway, so why is it in the article? I've played this game, and a few players keep claiming the Wachowskis are approving the story, but they can't provide any proof. The brothers aren't speaking for themselves, its not in the press releases, googling doesn't give any credible sources, and message boards aren't exactly WP:RS, it seems like this was just deduced from an ad that sort of implied it, but never actually said it, can anyone source these claims? TGirl29 (talk) 10:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. Matrix Online is based on the matrix storyline nothing more. The movies stands for themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.65.173.56 (talk) 10:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Joel Silver said it on the Matrix Revolutions DVD. Check the second disc and go to "Future Gamer: The Matrix Online."64.85.234.166 (talk) 11:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I want it said by the Warcowski brothers or else i dont belive it and i am going to countinue my Edit war! PS why couldn,t you link me to that joel silver interview? The matrix series are over appcept it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.65.173.56 (talk) 16:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It's on the freaking Matrix Revolutions DVD you moron. I already told you to check it. 64.85.234.166 (talk) 22:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I want it by the creators of the whole matrix universe the warcowski brothers before i beleive it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.65.173.56 (talk) 07:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Wachowski Brothers weren't interested in interviews when they filmed the movie sequels and had Joel Silver do the talking for them. Good God, are you just some twelve year-old retard?Dibol (talk) 07:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Taken completely by IGN's interview in a conversation between Paul Chadwick and Wachowski Brothers:

Paul Chadwick: Is it difficult, after meticulously crafting the Matrix films shot by shot, to subject your child to the vagaries of a MMO, where unpredictable player behavior is the rule?

The Wachowski Brothers: The "vagaries of an MMO where unpredictable player behavior is the rule," is the reason for doing it. Our films were never intended for a passive audience. There are enough of those kinds of films being made. We wanted our audience to have to work, to have to think, to have to actually participate in order to enjoy them. This may be because while we enjoy movies, we also spend a lot of time (as in crack-den amounts of time) gaming.

Gaming engages your mind actively whereas most genre films (the films we tend to watch) are designed to provoke as little thinking as possible. Consider why the films in which everyone knows exactly what is going to happen are the films that make the most money.

Yet the fact that the Matrix films are three of the most successful adult films in history (despite of what much of the media would have us believe), suggests that there are other people like us. Those are the people, the people who thought about it, who worked at it, who we ultimately made the trilogy for and it now makes perfect sense to us that they should inherit the storyline. For us, the idea of watching our baby evolve inside the virtual bubble-world of this new radically developing medium, which has in our opinion the potential of combining the best attributes of films and games, of synthesizing reality TV with soap opera, RPGs and Mortal Combat, is fantastically exciting.

Link: http://pc.ign.com/articles/603/603274p1.html

Dibol (talk) 07:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I read the whole page idiot and i didn,t see anything that would say it is a offical countiuation! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.236.223.107 (talk) 08:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It's canon.

News articles written prior to MxO's release:

"It's specifically designed to carry on the franchise", says Jason Hall, senior VP of Warner Bros. Interactive. "What happens in The Matrix Online is considered canon for the property." By creating a haven for Matrix believers, it's clear the Wachowskis will either ensure the survival of their franchise, or surrender Zion once and for all. http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,735572,00.html

Comics writer Paul Chadwick was hand-picked by the Wachowski Brothers to write the storylines for the first year of the game (at least five years are planned), which will be told through everything from cinematics that are available to all players, to in-game events, and even appearances inside the Matrix by characters from the films (featuring the original actors' voices). And everything that takes place within the game is considered official canon for the ongoing Matrix saga.

http://www.infuzemag.com/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=3077

Asking for confirmation by the Wachowski Brothers is beating a dead horse. As the writers and directors of the franchise, they never wanted to do interviews since they filmed the fucking sequels. Dibol (talk) 09:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The Warcowski brothers give interwievs trust me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.65.173.56 (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

They didn't want to give any further interviews regarding the Matrix franchise.Dibol (talk) 17:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

All of the sources you quoted also contain a lot of quotes and info about the game that are clearly not the case, especially concerning the storyline; you can't pick and choose what to quote from your source and pretend the rest doesn't exist. If your sources are loaded with things that are incorrect, than the source as a whole fails WP:RS, and your particular sources are just wishlist-hype as a result. Heck the Wachoski interview you quoted here contradicts what's in the game, 'players inheriting the storyline', 'unpredictable player behavior is the rule', etc. Anyone who's actually played this game knows all of that is incorrect. To address your other sources specifically, I've seen the Future Gaming piece before (I have the DVD as well), and nobody including Joel Silver specifically says 'Matrix Online is canon'; what a viewer infers is not a source. The Infuze line you cited is op-ed, not a quote, so its irrelevant. And beside the fact that Sony runs the game now, the Warner Interactive quote "What happens in The Matrix Online is considered canon for the property" is a slightly ambiguous choice of words, and it can't be taken at face value, otherwise snowball hurling yetis are canon, Halloween zombies are canon, etc. It doesn't matter what the players think, you can't pick and choose what's canon, either its canon or it isn't. TGirl29 (talk) 11:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

otherwise snowball hurling yetis are canon, Halloween zombies are canon, etc. It doesn't matter what the players think, you can't pick and choose what's canon, either its canon or it isn't.

The Halloween and Christmas events are for the sake of PLAYER ENJOYMENT. It's easy to dismiss the event as non-canon because it's not part o the official story. These things are just for the sake of enjoying the game while Halloween and Christmas are available. Dibol (talk) 21:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

like i said before i agree with you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.65.173.56 (talk) 13:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I happen to know that this issue comes up on the Matrix Online message board, but this isn't that message board, and here fanboys can't trickle in to win a debate with demagoguery and assumptions. In Wikipedia you have to actually prove your case, and nobody's ever actually done that with this issue, that's why I brought it up. So again, you don't get to pick and choose what is and isn't canon, either it is or it isn't.TGirl29 (talk) 03:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Side events such as Smith Anniversary, Blue Sky, Halloween, and Christmas had no bearing on the plot whatsoever. Why? Critical missions never make such references to it. It's just a damn video game, and certain elements are in it for the players to enjoy while it's still up despite how out-of-place said events are. Choices & Consequences, an original LET-only event was dropped because SOE's management created too many continuity errors due to the merging of nine servers into three, and Walrus said it got axed because of that fact considering all nine servers had different outcomes. Only things considered canon are the 95% of the Live Events and Critical missions, that's it. Dibol (talk) 07:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

What data exists that could be loosely called 'official' contradicts that, but then it contradicts itself half the time too. Regardless, player consensus is not a reliable source, and the players can't even agree on what's canon and what isn't. Why should it be presented here as though it wasn't an issue? Bottom line, it can't be verified, so it shouldn't be here, or it should at least be qualified so as not to mislead people.TGirl29 (talk) 07:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Plot summary

Many people (including me) have added the plot summary to the page, but it got deleted multiple times. Instead of keep adding it back every time, I suggest we make a new page for the summary, because it's just UNFAIR that the movies and the other games get summaries while the Matrix Online doesn't. Especially since it concerns the future of the Matrix series. Or we can find a link to an external page that summarizes everything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vistafreak (talk • contribs) 11:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with you on this Vista. I've been reading the plot summaries for each chapter carefully and it's just outright impossible to condense each chapter into two or three paragraphs due to how the Live Events and critical missions are tied together now that Rarebit is in charge of that department. The new page was suggested by someone else in the past, but Oni apparently said game's story is not notable enough for another page detailing the storyline. Linking fan-sites for giving the 411 on the story wont help considering the admin running their sites have had real life things to do, which meant that they only had the story events from the time the game was under Monolith's management. Dibol (talk) 21:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Why the hell did you create a new section on this? It's already being discussed above (well it had been resolved until more people felt the need to commence whining about it). Any particular reason you just can't leave it a part of that discussion? Also, keep in mind that none of it is SOURCED either, which the entire thing would need to be given the fleeting nature of a live events storyline. Simply citing the game won't do since starting to play the game now would give one essentially no information on previous plotlines. The whole thing is just the result of innane fanboy blathering because people can't grow up and deal with the fact that no one cares about their favorite game, especially not enough to give it a plot section longer than a novella.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 10:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Editors, please, keep it civil. Also adding the story line without any sourced information and based on original research is unacceptable under Wikipedia policy. Janus8463 (talk) 03:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It is absolutely crystal clear that Obi has a personal Jihad against this game for whatever reason. So I'm sure if we got the W Bros themselves to come on this site and/or hold an international press conference saying that yes, indeed, the Matrix Online is a continuation of the Matrix storyline; Obi and his henchmen (or his proxy alts) would still continue to parse and cajole and try to undermine this page six ways to Sunday. The fact is that this MMO is STORYLINE DRIVEN therefore SOME storyline summation is critical to the understanding of this game. Not even for current players but for those who want to look into the complete Matrix storyline. The storyline (at least from Chapters 1-10 have been written by Paul Chadwick at the behest of the W Brothers, with the brothers having a basic editorial/supervisory position on this story. SOE just can't fire Ben Chaimberlain and Paul Chadwick and hire some random guy to write whatever he wants; like having Neo and Smith return and allowing elves and unicorns into the game. It is what it is whether you like it or not. The bottom line is that we need SOMETHING here even if Obi or others have a personal vendetta against this WACHOWSKI BROTHERS APPROVED STORYLINE-DRIVEN game. Villemar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.107.58.131 (talk) 21:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

What source are you wanting us to use? As far as I know, besides story summaries that began only in the past few chapters, there isn't a "official" place where the story is completely written out. The best we can probably do for at least old live events is to link to the event summaries off the old website and make our own summary. Starofsports4 (talk) 19:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Make our own summary? Have you even read WP:NOR? No synthesis from primary sources is allowed. If we want to be able to create a plot summary for this page, we need to be able to cite each part of it to a place people can actually go to and look it up. It is a particular challenge for MMOs with live events plots. For a normal game we could cite a particular level, or time frame in the progress of the game. For an MMO, there is no such thing. No one can exactly pop the game in and find out what happened in chapter x.xx six and a half months ago.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 05:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

In regards to anon IP 68.107.58.131's comments accusing me of some sort of vendetta, please see the full disclosure section that a certain editorial juggernaut felt the need to remove without actually paying attention above. I have no problem with MxO. I played it, I liked it, other things came along, I moved on. I have no problem with monolith, I have problem with SOE, and I have no problem with the matrix franchise as as a whole. I'll forgive the constant misspelling of my name because there appears to be some literacy issue going on. Especially considering that no one here is either willing or capable of creating a concise, cited, summary of the storyline. Instead because it's "important" to the delusions of the fanbase that the game be recognized as more than the failure-to-market that it is you constantly revert (and if I had to guess I'd surmise sock puppetry is playing a roll in it as well since people conveniently "forget" to log in) to a plot summary that breaks at least 4 major policies/guidelines of Wikipedia. 1 2 3 4--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 20:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

As much as I don't agree with Wikipedia's policies, Oni has a point. I am in a similar position as him in terms of loving the game and hating SOE, and am one of the people that had an edit war over sometime during the past year over keeping the thing up only to realize this will be a repeated cycle as long as Wikipedia exists. MxO is a unique case considering that it's not covered as extensively to the public and is the only first game to integrate a continuous "organic" storyline unlike previous MMORPGS. He brought up a good point about not being able to cite MMORPGs properly considering that the game constantly changes over time and that the thing isn't divided into missions. As it stands, MxO's story is just too damn large to condense, and I've read the thing carefully paragraph by paragraph. I'm all for creating a new page to summarize the game's story, but due to MxO's obscure nature no thanks to SOE's management, it's just not feasible whatsoever, resulting in unnecessary censoring just because Wikipedia's questionable policy says so. Only way to actually resolve/change how things are posted on MxO's wiki page it is to bring it up on the Video Game projects page. Sure, we might get the same answer, but it sure beats having a dozen accounts closed for edit-warring on something no one can ever agree on compromising.Dibol (talk) 02:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It is possible to do this, given some sources on the old Monolith website (Aether used to put up a few things detailing the outcome of live events and the like) and the story summaries and live event summaries which have been published by Rarebit (the developer writing the story) for what I think is over a year now. I'd say that's official enough and source enough for this kind of thing. It could be placed on another page if this Ookami person has enough of a grudge to keep removing whatever is put up on this page, or it can remain here. It doesn't matter. But there is material enough for it to be done. -Neoteny 70.44.74.185 (talk) 18:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no grudge, I simply wish for the article to follow the rules of Wikipedia and include only notable, sourced information. You should really consider not being a WP:DICK about it by making false accusations as to a grudge that I don't have. If you think there is sufficient material, stop being lazy and do it. So far several people have claimed that it is doable, and noteworthy, but nobody seems to feel the desire to get off their asses and do it themselves.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 13:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not being a "dick" (nice redirect, by the way - so very helpful), you just seem to bear a grudge against this game, despite what you may say. Honestly, I'm not being lazy, I just don't know the wikipedian syntax too well, and don't feel entirey comfortable writing this subsection since I only started paying attention to MxO's storyline at about Chapter 4. And since you seem to have a problem with it, I have no guarantee that anything I write will be preserved, since you're likely to delete any summary I'd write for chapters 4-10 simply because I didn't include chapters 1-3 and I was too "lazy" to put them in, since I feel that someone more qualified could do that. It should also be noted that there is about one story summary per subchapter (i.e. 5 summaries for chapter 10) and at least three angles, but usually five, discussed within each subchapter. Which means that it would probably result in a minimum of a five paragraph summary per chapter, which, as per your criticism of previous summaries, would result in your deleting it for being WP:CRUFT even though there's really no justification for removing anything under that title, or any justification for labelling anything with that title, as, on that, page, it even says that the deletion of well-written articles is to be considered, or is usually considered controversial. While I do feel that the section is noteworthy, as per the standards in the link above, I also feel that some (i.e. you) feel that this section doesn't belong here in an article about a "game that nobody plays," leading me to question whether or not it may make more sense to put in a small summary linked to a page with a broader chapter by chapter outline so as to separate the story from the gameplay (which seems to be all that this page is at the moment). -Neoteny 70.44.74.185 (talk) 18:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I think there's a larger issue here. When I first became enamored with Wikipedia, it was as a repository for knowledge. I could as easily look up topics on obscure political figures, or matters of hard science, as I could find detailed and lavish discussion of matters of popular culture like games or movies. While I agree some of the standards of Wikipedia were violated by the original form of the page--I think the much weightier damage has been a huge loss of knowledge painstakingly compiled by numerous authors in a good faith gesture to add to everyone's knowledge of what is, granted, a fairly esoteric topic. I've seen this all across Wikipedia of late, and it's sad. While I am in favor of including in-text citations warning where the accuracy or bias of information is dubious, or adding requests for content editing and reformatting, I think it's paramount that Wikipedia and its editors remember that the site should still tolerate what it objects to. In a medium where people aren't forced to read any further than they wish, that respect for contributions and desire for completeness is the greater value over conciseness, importance, or even adherance to policy. Citing that something is less notable is fine. Citing a need for references is fine. Edit wars and information purges aren't. They make Wikipedia a less fine resource for its users.--Grimcleaver. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grimcleaver (talk • contribs) 21:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

where is the story i want to know about the story? put it on this page if people want to whine bout it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.215.21 (talk) 08:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

So, Ookami thinks that there shouldn't be a story summarization because there is no proof that there is a story at all? What the hell? Fan sites would be the best sources for detailed story layouts, in my honest opinion. When I first read this article, this is what I read (paraphrased): The Matrix Online is an MMO. It has a STORY. Er, okay. What's the story? Oh, don't worry about, it's WP:CRUFT What I am trying to say is, if there is a video game that is heavily reliant on the story progression, then there should be some attempt at giving the reader a basic run through of the game's events, instead of deleting EVERYTHING. I'll refer you to Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built. Even though this article isn't simply a stub, I think the same rules apply. I think Ookami was very much in the wrong in deleting the entire story, and should have taken the time to write a shorter version of what was written. 98.211.183.202 (talk) 15:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you quite done yet? Citing useless essays won't get you anywhere, they mean and communicate nothing other than the lack of desire to articulate your own feelings on the issue. The fact of the matter is, this "house" was done being "built" a long time ago. It was built shoddily without foundation or support. Wikipedia policy is to include information when it can be sourced properly, not before. If you can't deal with that, then too damn bad. Take it up on the policy pages. Editors simply inserted uncited story info, much of which was bloated and irrelevant anyway, and refused to cooperate in any effort to trim it down or cite it. Hard work my ass, it was the utter lack of hard work on the part of the editors that wanted to see it preserved that led to its demise. --Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 16:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

So then why don't YOU stop being lazy and create your own story summary instead of throwing that word around as if it doesn't apply to you? According to you, the people who have made the effort to put a summary onto the article are putting in uncited STORY info (which doesn't need to be cited, btw, it's STORY, not fact), and the others are lazy? I think YOU are the one being a WP:DICK here. You don't need to cite story information. If you go to The Matrix Revolutions, you don't see a cited reference to the W Bros explaining the story. Anonymous~Source (talk) 16:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there any possibility of recovering any of it? I'd be glad to work to boil it down and cite it as fully as possible (though I'm not sure what the protocol is for citing this kind of thing) to whatever degree is required. If it is just gone, then maybe I could begin the process anew of creating short summaries of the chapters. I just hate the idea that I'd put hours into something and have it just get deleted too--taken as some kind of continuation of the edit-war. Seriously though. Give me a sense of what would be considered okay, how much summary is appropriate, and I'd be happy to throw something up. Just so long as folks don't clay pidgeon style blow it out of the sky. Frankly I would love to contribute. -Grimcleaver

The fact of the matter is that there are certain editors working on this article that seem to find any reliable information on the story outline for this game not notable and, for whatever reason that seems to have nothing to do with the article itself, won't allow it to be added into the article. From what I can see, numerous editors have made attempts at including their own story that have been deleted for the reason of being "non-notable" (which I find makes no sense at all, you don't need notability for a story summary. Others have been called lazy. I wouldn't write out a summary until said editor has ceased deleting anything pertaining to the story. Anonymous~Source (talk) 16:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an expert or regular contributer, so I'm probably wrong, but here's my idea. I think that as The Matrix Online has a storyline that is released in installments over a period of time, it seems comparable to a TV show or comic book series. So I think the right thing to do with the game's story here might be to do the same thing that is normally done for the storylines of TV/comics, whatever that is. I don't want to get into any debate; I just wanted to get this idea out there, so please, don't get mad. Megaritz (talk) 05:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

That's actually...a really good idea. Wow. Thanks! -Grimcleaver —Preceding comment was added at 09:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I am in favor of an abbreviated plot section, but there is a critical problem here that cripples the argument regarding television shows, comics, etc. The events that unfold in those things exist after they pass. A book (comic or otherwise), can be cited to confirm the information, as can an episode of a TV show or the events of a movie. With most video games that holds true as well. Unfortunately, with an MMO that uses a live-events type storyline, very little evidence exists to show what has transpired in the game world. If we say that character x showed up at such and such place at a given point of time and did something, we need to be able to point to a source that a reader could look up to confirm this for his or her self. No one has really put forth such a source. I find it somewhat hard to believe it doesn't exist but I don't know where to find one and no one else seems to either, or if they are they are not willing to put it forth. As for recovering the info, it is in the page history. Looking around the start dates of any of the relevant discussions should yeild a relatively complete copy. It would be impractical to introduce it back into the article space before making the necessary changes, as it will not fit inclusion criteria and will most likely be reverted. A good idea would be to create a subpage in your userspace and invite editors to work on it via this talk page. As for comments by anonymous user at IP 98.211.183.202, I will not be addressing these comments anymore as the arguments presented do not in any way represent the actual policies in guidelines, and user insists on making false and baseless accusations regarding my motives. The personal attacks don't help much either. --Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 12:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Where have I made any personal attacks (that you haven't thrown out yourself, anyway) or said anything false about your motives? Nothing you have done helped contribute to the article except for your relentless deletion of anything involving the story. You calling everyone else trying to contribute to the article lazy while you haven't contributed anything story-wise yourself, it's the pot calling the kettle black here. Even though I think your motives have nothing to do with bettering the article, I never stated it or used it against you, because quite frankly, I don't care enough to mention your motives. My goal is to make this article the best that it can be. You're keeping it from doing that with your edit warring.

Back to the article. Since there is no official and detailed information on the main site, the only information we have to rely on are fan sites or "official" fan sites related directly to The Matrix Online. If there are NO other sources, the best route is not to just leave it blank, but to use sources we wouldn't normally use in other situations, such as fan sites, at least credible fan sites. Any decent editor would go this route given the circumstance. You can't leave the story section of a story-driven MMO blank. The reader who wants to know about the story won't learn anything from this article. *Edit: I've signed in. I didn't realize I wasn't. All my posts are now appropriately tagged. Anonymous~Source (talk) 16:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it is perfectly appropriate to have a considerate, thoughtful, well-edited plot summary for this section, along with a new page/article about the continuation of The Matrix series as per The Matrix Online game. After all, while it was created and developped by the Wachowski brothers, it is no longer their exclusive property. It is a shared intellectual property and thus, they do not have the final word on it. This officially licensed game is thus, by all copyright and intellectual property laws, part of its canon until anounced otherwise by the owners of the property. I say go ahead and re-instate the full chapter summaries, but in a separate, dedicated article. And maybe cut down a bit, too. Fetternity (talk) 09:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

A separate article? That would just make this problem worse. We do not need summaries to be that thorough. In fact we never have, for any game/movie/etc. The best thing to do would be to reinclude it in this article while putting some actual effort into it. So far all that has happened in the past are shoddy attempts to copy/paste the entire uncited out of control fluff back in here. All it needs is to be thoughtfully trimmed down, and sources included, those sources could well be fansites given the nature of our problem but it needs to be something. Making it into its own article will just blow the whole problem up to a level that is even more out of control than it was before. Honestly all a chapter needs is a few sentences of what happened, not much more. We don't need this advanced play by play of every last detail that occurred, just simply who the major parties were, what they tried to do, and what happened as a result. That's really it. In most cases that's 3 maybe 4 sentences per chapter. We can easily leave more detailed summation up to the actual fan sites. I don't see why people think I'm this evil fuck who's out to destroy the game's article. In fact while I played it I liked it and I would still play it if I felt it prudent to pay for two such games at one time. If anything the fact that I want the article to fall within policy and look as it should indicates that I do appreciate the game and I want it to be done correctly.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 20:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

For my part I'm not looking to do anything as in depth as to chronicle every live event in game. That would be crazy to try and tackle. I'm just looking for a synopsis of the missions and cinematics that push forward the story--the kind of stuff anyone can verify by playing the game. I don't need every time someone saw Niobe at a party and what she's wearing. I'd just like to put up a episode index thing for each chapter with a summary of major events per chapter. The big question before I do that is what kind of citation would it require to not get deleted. I'm not sure how TV shows do it. Mostly the way to verify an episode of a TV show or an issue of a comic is to read it. How do you sufficiently site a video game? I mean the cinematics are on Youtube I suppose, but that's hardly solid proof. What would you suggest, and how would you like it formatted? Like I said, I would love to put some work on this. I just don't want what I do to get yanked. -Grimcleaver. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grimcleaver (talk • contribs) 17:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

This is where it gets tricky. For a movie, you'd simply cite the movie itself and maybe a scene# or timestamp. For a show, you would cite the particular episode, for a book, the page. For most videogames I would generally cite the level or some other marker that would enable a reader to find it within the game were they to attempt confirming it for themselves. (For example, in World of Warcraft, I would probably cite a character and location/event if it was something spoken. For a game like this, it is not possible to do that since there is no way to look it up and watch the event happen. While I would normally be loathe to include fansites as references or links, they may be the only alternative in this case. As a rule of thumb the information has to be viable, and that tends to mean someone has to be able to verify the source on their own.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 14:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, as for citing the chapter and subchapter cinematics, they are available to watch on one of the tabs when you log into the game. As for the actual missions, you can replay them as archives from the archive broker in the game. I'm not sure how you would write that up, but all the events I would want to summarize do still exist as archives or cinematics in the game for verification. I've also got a copy of the Prima Game Guide, but that only takes you so far. Now I guess the question is how do I reference it correctly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grimcleaver (talk • contribs) 19:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, that is a weird one. I think left to my own devices I would probably just cite a cinematic as <ref=refname>Matrix Online Chapter X.y opening cinematic</ref> the name being some arbitrarily but ideally useful word or phrase that will act as a shortcut if you need to use the particular ref more than once. The missions are a bit trickier. I suppose you can do that but I would strive to get some written source if possible. Just be careful not to mention things that cannot be discovered by playing that mission, like how players reacted to it or anything, as that is not verifiable through the particular source and would need a source where someone could actually verify that particular information.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 18:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

For verification of live events, we can use the specific event threads as a reference since they contain screenshot evidence of what is being said? - RejectKnowledge

Drive cars in the game yet?

There was much hype about being able to drive cars in TMO, a feature that hasn't materialized the last I heard.

But many patches later, many features were added. Are TMO players able to drive cars yet? If so, this would be a great addition to the article. Thank you. --Let Us Update Special:Ancientpages. 07:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

No, and there is no talk (or real possibility) of cars ever being added to MxO in a player-interactive capacity. -Neoteny 70.44.74.185 (talk) 18:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

MxO<->M×0?

Currently, MxO redirects to this page, as MxO is the abbreviation for the Matrix online, but there is also a Manga titled M×0. I'm wondering, considering how closely the title matches the abbreviation, which would take priority in this situation?--Vercalos (talk) 03:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Game to end July 31, 2009

Announced here that the game will be going offline on July 31, 2009. http://forums.station.sony.com/mxo/posts/list.m?topic_id=36300028715 .
In other words it will have come and gone without our ever managing to get the "multiple issues" in our article resolved. WP:WIF?? -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 22:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Hilarious. Does the fact that some people go through a full life not fulfilling all their plans, and not resolving all their troubles make their life worthless? Unless you're a pretty negative person, perfectionism shouldn't make you feel that what has been done was in vain. /Philosophising off. Ingolfson (talk)

But what then for The Matrix franchise? What next for the Wachowskis? --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 13:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Further, now that everyone in MxO knows "the world is definitely going to end soon"...can we anticipate that everyone will "party like its 1999"? --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 13:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)