Jump to content

Talk:Tom Clancy's EndWar/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Trailer

Is there any information available why the troops in Paris is just JSF and Spetsnaz? Isn't it quite weird how there's no EFEC troops, even thought france is part of EF in the story? Ran4 (talk) 17:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

EGM

The latest issue of EGM has an exclusive on the game; it turns out it's a voice-activated RTS. We should update the article soon. ZakuTalk 02:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The reference page doesn't confirm the game is an RTS, so a scan of the EGM article would be beneficial, if anyone has one. Fireryone 07:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I have the magazine, but I doubt that putting scanned magazine pages up on the internet is legal. Either way, the website and magazine both say to check back at the end of may for gameplay footage, which should confirm it.

All right, thats fine Fireryone 04:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

May I show you: http://www.psu.com/Tom-Clancys-End-War-gameplay-revealed--a0003122-p0.php So... Yeah, this is voice RTS, and it looks awesome :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.116.62.202 (talk) 23:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Hidden Site

I put some info into the gameplay section, still needs work though. And I'm not sure if the "Hidden site" section really belongs in the article. 66.234.211.40 03:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

How would you recommend changing it, I undid a delete of it for now, Unless there is some majority view or other wiki reason for removing it, I'm sure others would like to know the information at least the password I suppose. Fireryone 07:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The information contained in that section is not relevant to an encyclopedia. See WP:NOT for more details. A link to an article with the information may be a better alternative. Also, a link to a history page of an old article should not be on the article, the information should be put into this article.--kenobi.zero 09:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I put a link to a Kotaku article with instructions for accessing the official site. This should be a more suitable alternative.--kenobi.zero 09:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thats better, I don't have any beef with the 'history' page. Fireryone 04:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I see every time the passcode is mentioned (even without an entire section dedicated to the site) it is removed,
so was the link kenobi made. So i will add the passcode info here. Fireryone 00:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

How to enter www.rev64.com

To anyone who visits the www.rev64.com page you will need to enter this code: s9p1z6 , to view two hidden video clips. Also if you go to the Archive link on he site, there a various yellow 'links' which play sound clips. Fireryone 02:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

EGM216

At rev64.com, after i entered the passcode, while the audio file was playing, EGM216 flashed on screen, along with the EndWar logo. What does this mean? J-stan Talk 16:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Wait, If you got to the link at the bottom of this page, It links to a trailer. It's nothing. J-stan Talk 03:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Problems with the article.

The article needs to be tweaked.

  • Platforms. First PC is removed and then PS3 is crossed out. A definite source needs to be provided, and please don't line-through words in an article. If it doesn't belong there, remove it.
  • In the Gameplay section, there is a sentence "Several different unit types have also been confirmed: Riflemen, Engineers, Tanks, Transport, Helicopters, Artillery, and Command Vehicles, and some units are also shown in the trailer, such as gunners, and a large plane-helicopter hybrid." I believe that the gunners and the plane-helicopter hybrid are riflemen and helicopters respectively, so there should be no need to say these units are different from the listed ones.

However lacking sources I am not going to edit the article without proper confirmation. --kenobi.zero 10:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look at the "Interview with Julian Gerighty". It specifically states in a pop up box that it will be for PS3 and Xbox 360, but not for PC. Second, if you look at the official trailer, at 0:46, It shows units with machine guns firing. Also, at 1;39, it shows a plane that has propellers that can rotate around, to sort of a helicopter position. I was just adding those because they seemed interesting to note. Last of all, be bold in your editing. J-stan Talk 23:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I did not want to edit since I have not seen the Game Reactor interview, and thus I could be wrong.--kenobi.zero 07:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
It's the last external link. J-stan Talk 15:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that the hybrid was a V-22 or something similar (haven't seen any pictures). That is a tiltrotor, a completely different kind of aircraft that is neither helicopter nor aeroplane, and therefore the article is mistaken. 213.78.183.91 (talk) 10:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

PC

In the Game Reactor interview with Julian gerighty, it says specifically that it is not for PC. If someone can add a legitimate source that proves otherwise, please add it. J-stan Talk 23:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

PlayStation 3 won't will be supported in a few months; PC will right after the Xbox 360 version.

Ok, my source says the opposite. Where did you find this? J-stan Talk 02:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Wow! Still, keeping with WP:OR, you might want to add an actual source. By the way, I couldn't access the profile on your user page. J-stan Talk 02:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, as you are an inside source, maybe you could just run through the article, and make sure we have correct info. J-stan Talk 03:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Not to question your occupation, but at the bottom of the Ubisoft EndWar site, it has the Xbox 360, Playstation, and Playstation 3 logos. I hope you understand my confusion. Point and laugh 03:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, kinda f'ed up this little section, eh? Point and laugh 02:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK the game was being designed for the consoles from the ground up, it was in the EGM article I think. Although I haven't been keeping up with the game so who knows. R.westermeyer 20:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Multiplayer

What is meant by it being multiplayer? I mean, is it only online (except for the training missions)? It was also stated that online, there would be sort of an MMORTS type of gameplay. Should we include that? J-stan Talk 21:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

It depends on what MMORTS is supposed to mean. EndWar is a RTS game, but not in a standard way: it provides a FPS-like view of the unit you have selected (cf. Mickael De Plater interview; IGN website). Is EndWar a MMO? A limited number of players can fight together in a same host session. So it's not a MMO game in the sense of World of Warcraft. However, a special game mode can be played, which registers every battle result, which changes the face of the theatre of war from time to time; so perhaps, in this sense, EndWar is an MMO.
This game mode is called Theatre of War. This is a persistent mode. The Theatre of War corresponds to a predefined sets of regions, each region divided in territories. A territory initially belongs to a faction (SPZ, EUC, or JSF), the original owner of this territory. According to some criteria, which I won't explain here, a territory might be engage-able, i.e. an opponent faction can fight on this territory.
Before entering the Theate of War, a player is required to choose a faction (SPZ, EUC, or JSF). He gets then a default battalion, which is linked to his account. The composition of the initial player battalion depends on the faction the player belongs to. When fighting on a territory, the player selects the units he wants to engage in the battle. Units gain in experience, and player in credits. Credits can be used to unlock new weapons, new updates, etc.
A campaign is defined world-wide. Every player that enters the Theatre of War participates to this campaign. A campaign is a phase divided in turns and cease-fire periods. A turn is limited period of times. A cease-fire period follows each turn; all the Theatre of War calculations are done in this period of times, determining which faction wins which territory, which territory is engage-able, sabotage-able, etc. Players can still fight during cease-fire period but their battles won't count into Theatre of War calculations; players online are informed of the current status of the Theatre of War (in turn, in cease-fire period, etc.). The faction that reaches first the victory conditions wins the campaign. A new campaign may start again.
It is an MMORTS, which is different from games like world of warcraft, which is an MMORPG. EndWar is supposed to have the feature you described, making it MMO, and it is an RTS. J-stan Talk 17:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
http://www.1up.com/do/previewPage?pager.offset=1&cId=3160170
"We've got this persistent world where North America, Europe, and Russia are divided up into territories, much like a Risk board," says de Plater. "All the players are participating in this single, global campaign." Does that mean that one side can eventually win? Yes. "A campaign ends when one faction conquers the majority of territories," says de Plater. "The course of the war is totally up to the players." But that doesn't mean the game's over -- when one campaign ends, the EndWar developers initiate a new one, tweaking a few variables to help push the story along. "We can edit the start and victory conditions," says de Plater. "For example, if America's been conquered, we could choose to start the next campaign to liberate U.S. soil with a massive new 'D-Day' landing on the East Coast." Sounds mighty ambitious...to which de Plater shrugs, "The buzzword [here] is 'big.'"
Yes, this is true. The game community can modify some theatre of war parameters during cease-fire period to adjust game play. We can imagine that we will pay more and more attention to our player community, that we will provide more service, and not just a product. User:daniel.caune
In a gamesradar interview it says that there is a singleplayer campaign:
"'Has as much focus gone into to the single-player game too?'
de Plater: 'Yeah, you can play a single-player version of that same online campaign. There are scripted missions that lead up to how we get to WWIII and then you can play the meta-campaign turn-by-turn and you can play as any one of the three factions. It might be ten or 12 hours to play once but then you can play that from the point of view of all three factions. There's a good 30-40 hours of single-player gaming that'll be different every time you play.'"
And in an IGN interview it says that there are also some coop modes. (It's about 4 minutes into the video.) Point and laugh 03:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Awesome. I was worried because I am not currently hooked up to xbox live. Thanks again! J-stan Talk 14:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Explanation please

"Some other new features such as heraldry are confirmed. De Plater says this creates a "Pokémon-like" ownership of your units, and will influence tactics greatly."

Can someone clarify a) what that means, and b) Who is De Plater? also, where can I find this source? J-stan Talk 19:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


a) Well, your units will be persistant in that anybody who survived a previous battle will be smarter the next time they face combat (whereas replacements will be rookies with no expierence). Also, you can get upgrades for your units' personal weapons and armor which will stay with them until they die. I think you can also create a motto, lineage, and coat of arms for your unit. b) Michael de Plater is the creative director for EndWar. There's some info about it in the EGM issue #216, which came out a few months ago. Point and laugh 02:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I see. Thank you very much. Is there any way where I could view EGM #216 online? J-stan Talk 03:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
The link listed in the references is the only thing I could find. You might be able to find a forum or something where somebody's posted it, but other than that I don't know. Point and laugh 03:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok I'll keep looking. J-stan Talk 14:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Alright, I found it here. Point and laugh 02:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I could really use this. J-stan Talk 02:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Series

In the IGN interview with de Plater, he used the term "first installment" to describe EndWar. Do I smell a series? Should we add this? J-stan Talk 16:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

If it isn't considered speculation, then yeah. Point and laugh 19:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
You brought it to community attention :) Your recent edit used the term "installment", which was found in the cited article as a direct quote from de Plater. It is by no means speculative :) J-stan TalkContribs 20:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I actually have funny feelings about adding it now. I don't want to put it in 6 months before the game comes out, because it might not develop into a series. J-stan TalkContribs 20:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
That's what I was thinking. Point and laugh 20:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I know this is much later than your previous posts, but I would say that there is a good chance a series will be made out of Tom Clancy's EndWar.Liberater444 (talk) 23:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I need Some help

can someone tell me what this means:

[1]

The last section on the page is about EndWar. From what I understand, there's a demo. Could someone explain this? J-stan TalkContribs 22:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

While there is supposed to be a demo sometime in November (I don't know the source, so I can't put it in the article), that section is about the EndWar theme for the Xbox 360 that came out after the trailer. Point and laugh 05:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean "theme"? I am not hooked up to Live as I mentioned, so I don't know what is available to download or anything. Is that like desktop wallpaper? J-stan TalkContribs 21:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, pretty much. Point and laugh 22:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

People keep deleting the Madden NFL in the "see also" section. I personally think that it deserves to be in there. What does everybody else think? Point and laugh 21:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I personally think its not justified because Madden is not related to the Tom Clancy-branches. Only because the game designer said the game would deliver a Madden-like war scene the link still doesnt deserve to be in the "see also" section, as Madden was only an example. The reader doesnt need to read through the Madden article to understand what the game is about or what genre the game fits in, the link only (as you see in the edits this only distracts users). An as soon as the game's out the whole article will be rewritten anyway. --ChrisJG 09:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Alright, I guess I see your point Point and laugh 19:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
While ChrisJG makes a good point, I believe it should be in there (that's why I added it). It appears to have heavily influenced the game design, with many references and allusions to it in the EGM216 article. J-stan TalkContribs 21:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it deserves to be in there. The madden reference was meant to tell people that instead of commanding a huge army, you'll be down on the ground getting into the action a little more "personally". If we're going to link another game in order to explain what the gameplay will be like, full spectrum warrior would probably be the game to link to. R.westermeyer 20:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Why? J-ſtan TalkContribs 19:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
It has many of the same features that endwar does, and it is a military strategy game on a console to boot. You control 8 men in two squads of four, and you must direct them to cover, who to fire on, etc., but if they are left alone to fight for themselves, the AI will take over and they will seek better cover, return fire, etc.. And yes, I know that de plater did refer to it as madden at war, but if you compare madden and FSW you will find full spectrum is better to use in a comparison. R.westermeyer 20:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Engine

Do we have a source for the engine? It doesn't really seem like an RTS engine. J-stan TalkContribs 17:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Bottom of the page in footnote #3 Point and laugh 05:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Unreal Engine 3, and as far as I heard that was not an easy task to integrate it as this engine has not been made for a RTS game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel.caune (talk • contribs) 04:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
EGM216? I couldn't find it in the ref you gave me. J-stan TalkContribs 17:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
here. Point and laugh 07:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Huh, I added that ref, I should have noticed that. J-stan TalkContribs 15:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

The gameplay section needs to be cleaned up. I split it up into sections, but I'm not that good of an editor and it could be much better. Point and laugh 04:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

How would you like to see it? I could take care of any cleanup you don't feel you can do. J-stan TalkContribs 20:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
It reads too much like a jumbled assortment of quotes and facts rather than an organized encyclopedia article. I don't really know how to fix it, so if you could find a way that would be awesome. Point and laugh 21:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I'll see what I can do, but at this stage in the development, all the info we really have to go by are quotes and facts. J-stan TalkContribs 21:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, it looks much better now. Point and laugh 21:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I didn't really know exactly what to do until the "VG Assessment" thread, but at least the article looks better. J-stan TalkContribs 22:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I couldn't really tell what I thought was wrong either. Point and laugh 12:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

VG Assessment

This is in regards to the request at the VG Assessment page. I'm rating this article as Start-class, Low-importance. Here are a few tips to improve it!

Tiny paragraphs look bad and flow bad- please convert the plot section into a non-subsectioned piece. (additionally, you don't need to subsection it as "background" when there isn't a non-background section in addition to it). And, is that indented section a quote? If it is, paraphrase it, if it's not, unindent it. The rest looks fine, it's an unreleased game so there's not much you can write about. --PresN 14:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. J-stan TalkContribs 15:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Verifiable

It seems like users are adding a lot of unsourced info. I'm not saying it's all untrue, just that we need proof that it is true. I didn't want to revert it all, but we might have to. J-ſtanTalkContribs 04:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You could sift through all the old EGM, IGN, and Gameinformer articles to find specific information; but, I'm pretty sure that the majority of the things in the article are accurate. Point and laugh 07:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Scott Mitchell

Just a tip that TeamXbox has posted a preview specifying that Scott Mitchell will lead the US Forces. Not sure if this can be confirmed anyway else, just thought I'd let you know. SplinterCell37 09:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Cool, this also confirms that Scott Mitchell survives the events in GRAW 2, two birds with one stone. Lawnmowers Rock! 10:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much! We needed a new source for this page! I'll add it immediately. J-ſtanTalkContribs 17:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

FireHawk

We should get a source for this. I saw early box art for FireHawk and thought it was a working title for Tom Clancy's Air Combat. I had a source for that, and I could probably still get it. But it would be good to source the FireHawk statement. J-ſtanTalkContribs 19:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we need a source for it. I'm search it on the internet, but I'm pretty sure that it was originally known as Firehawk (there even was a Wiki page about the game Firehawk). -Jort227 (talk) 22:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok I've found a source, and I added it. -Jort227 (talk) 22:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Awesome. Also, I noticed I've done a few reverts on edits that look like legit edits. I just don't want everyone to think I'm trying to control the page. J-ſtanTalkContribs 00:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Firehawk == H.A.W.X game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.28.102.101 (talk) 23:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Faction sections

Okay, since some people keep re-adding the separate sections for each faction, I was wondering whether or not everyone wanted that. I don't like it, personally; it makes it look too game-guide-like, even though it isn't even out yet. J-ſtanTalkContribs 03:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Take them out, if you have to. Eaglestorm (talk) 04:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, it looks better now. J-ſtanTalkContribs 04:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
No prob, man. Eaglestorm (talk) 05:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

What is an IP?

"...being designed by Ubisoft Shanghai; EndWar being their first original IP." What is an IP? This isn't their first internet protocol. Unless an acronym is widely-used (like ASAP or FUBAR), you should include its definition before or immediately after it's first use. I don't know what an IP is in this case, so I can't add it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.181.40.100 (talk) 04:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

What's funny is that you're editing as an IP! But yeah, I see what you're saying. I couldn't find anything on the page IP. J-ſtanTalkContribs 04:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Intellectual_property, I believe. Point and laugh (talk) 18:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Could be, however intellectual property I believe refers to the ownership, not the product. J-ſtanTalkContribs 23:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

In the game industry when something is called an IP it is typically referring to the game being the first in a series, eg Assassins Creed is Ubi's latest IP, Splinter Cell is one of their best-selling IP's, GRAW is one of their IP's. 66.195.91.67 (talk) 19:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

But what does it stand for? Since Ubi is a french company, could it be a french acronym? J-ſtanContribsUser page 20:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I've checked around, and most (if not all) videogame companies use the term IP. It's intellectual property, because it refers to the idea of EndWar; this is the first time that Ubi Shanghai has had an original idea for a game series. Point and laugh (talk) 01:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, that settles that! J-ſtanContribsUser page 02:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Cool Point and laugh (talk) 03:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Release Date October 31 says Amazon

According to Amazon.com here the Xbox 360 and PC versions will be released on Ocober 31, 2008. Blackngold29 (talk) 02:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It would not be wise to cite them, since they have been wrong on release dates several times. Just wait for official data from Ubisoft. Eaglestorm (talk) 02:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
...and as such, it would be best to list the release date as "TBA" until we have such clear cut evidence, with a comment asking all to leave it alone. Justin(c)(u) 02:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
this article now says the game will be released on 15th of october, but on the game sites, most say u can pre-order them for the 7th of november, im sure they will have the correct release date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.187.74 (talk) 18:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Should the Novel have its own page?

The Splinter Cell series has four novels with individual pages for each one. I think that the EndWar novelization deserves its own article. If you agree I will gladly create it. Blackngold29 (talk) 18:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's wait until the novel comes out. It would be sub-stub right now. I wouldn't be against this, if the book is notable. J-ſtanContribsUser page 19:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I got the book today, even though it isn't supposed to be out until February 5, some messup at the store, I suppose. But anyway, I'll start reading it and see if I can get an article started soon. You can find a rough draft in my sandbox, you are welcome to edit it. Blackngold29 (talk) 23:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
*Covers ears* LALALA!! I don't want to hear the end! LALALA!! </sillyness> Yeah, if you could get an article going, it might work. Justin(c)(u) 16:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I won't add any spoilers yet, I've only read the first few pages. I've created the article here. The Cast is only partial. Any input would be great.Blackngold29 (talk) 17:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

OR?

For this edit, it seems like a lot of OR. I made a revert previous to this edit, so I wanted to discuss first before reverting. Justin(c)(u) 22:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm taking it all off. There are side comments, and excessive OR-class data. --Eaglestorm (talk) 02:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Trailer

Is there any information available why the troops in Paris is just JSF and Spetsnaz? Isn't it quite weird how there's no EFEC troops, even thought france is part of EF in the story? Ran4 (talk) 17:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

My Guess? It is JSF because the marketing is aimed at Americans, and they are fighting Russians for the same reason and they are fighting in Paris because the Russians would "never" break the American lines but they needed somewhere recognizable. (XD seriously you know they have to market to a very patriotic and slightly arrogant group.)

Yes - it's just a trailer - as the game is strategy I think I will have a risk like flow of battle, so depending on how you play you could have any forces in any location.. That was my understanding from the previews anyway.87.102.5.5 (talk) 16:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Green Brigade Transnational

"There is also a fourth NPC terrorist faction called Green Brigade Transnational led by Green Vox." This was posted with no source. I removed it.

Why? the terrorist faction is a major player in the novelization

Green Brigade is replaced in-game with The Forgotten Army. Spartan198 (talk) 10:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I read through the dialogues of the game in C drive program files, Ofgame, config, dialog. atleast that's the path it was in my pc. there is definite mention of the green brigade as a serious faction that seems to control certain areas. do we atleast mention in the article? Tca achintya (talk) 18:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

For PC?

According to Gamespot, it is also coming out for PC. If there is a source that says that it isn't coming out for PC, then it should be cited. Look for yourself:

[2] [3]

"the WWIII-themed strategy game EndWar, will launch on the PC, Xbox 360, and PlayStation 3 later this year,"

Here is a news report that included the listed consoles, and apparently the DS: [4]

This is true that there will be a DS version, quite different from the other console versions, indeed. This version is not developed by Ubisoft Shanghai, but by Ubisoft Chengdu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel.caune (talk • contribs) 03:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Contralya (talk) 07:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The promotional site 'rev64' needs some sort of explanation - so I added the password to the link.. otherwise it's meaningless.. Maybe someone else can sort this out in a better way.87.102.86.73 (talk) 15:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

What sort of explanation? 202.12.233.21 (talk) 17:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

like the explanation I added? Try clicking on the link and you (hopefully) will see what I meant...87.102.86.73 (talk) 18:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

referenced needed

Sections marked 'unreferenced' require sources.87.102.86.73 (talk) 19:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Developers

The introduction and the info box of the Wikipedia page about Tom Clancy's EndWar are incomplete. The design and the development of this game have not been done by Ubisoft Shanghai only, but by two other studios, such as Ubisoft Montreal (e.g., server side conception and implementation of the Theatre of War, i.e., the persistent world), and Ubisoft San Francisco (Web interface of the Theatre of War). On November 2007, the maintenance of the server code has been transferred to Ubisoft Shanghai. Daniel 05:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

What is the official release date?

I have been seeing conflicting information about the game being released either October 15, 2008 or November 4, 2008 in the United States. Which one is more accurate? Dibol (talk) 07:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


The Australian or Asia Pacific release date should be put down, problem is i dont know how to do it, but i can tell you its November 6th. --Jameogle (talk) 06:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Weapons

Thanks for allowing some of my "weapons" area contributions onto the site. As play progresses, I hope to add more weapons info to the page. Liberater444 (talk) 03:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to tell you this, but you can't prove that the weapons edits are all yours, since your user name does not appear on the history log. There's a fair chance it will be edited so don't claim certain contrbutions as "yours." Anybody can say they did it. thank you.--Eaglestorm (talk) 14:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
eh? –xeno (talk) 14:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)




"VIP demo"

why does it say this? I have the demo from XBL marketplace and I have silver —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.100.164.44 (talk) 23:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The demo was originally released early for those that preordered the game, and was later opened up for everyone. The early release was called the "VIP demo" and the later release was just the normal demo to the public. the_one092001 (talk) 09:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Guardian Review

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/oct/30/microsoft-playstation-tom-clancy

4/570.131.211.219 (talk) 13:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


Okay, I put it in but *really* messed up. I'm new at adding links. Sorry.70.131.211.219 (talk) 07:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup 2

The Units section reads like a bunch of gameguide trivia. --EEMIV (talk) 21:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Ending Credits Theme

Anyone knows who produced and performed the song? And I don't mean the instrumental song in the trailer, I'm talking about the rock song during the Ending Credits —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.67.45.21 (talk) 03:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


General problems with this article

Just so you know this article reads like the game hasn't been released. I happen to own Endwar and I can tell you that large sections of this are out-of-date and incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crimzon2283 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I added an update tag - hopefully someone will give it a re-write. I don't know enough about the game to do it myself. - RD (Talk) 10:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Umm... the end of the Story section leaves a little out, I don't want to update it cause' I'm a little rough on editing after stopping for so long (I don't even remember my old username). Shouldn't we add a little on how Russia was behind the attacks, and, disguised as terrorists, attacked an EF airbase, loaded a virus into a SLAMS uplink which identified the rescheduled launch of the Freedom 4 Lifter as an ICBM launch. The Missile Shield promptly shot it down, making the EF look like they attacked it, setting off WWIII. I forget why Russia joined in the party afterwards. If someone could update it please. 72.84.128.210 (talk) 18:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This article has been badly neglected. This was a major release! Why does it still sound like the game hasn't come out yet?! Somebody who knows the full details of this product, please update it and have it in the present tense.71.192.134.75 (talk) 01:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I have added the "prelude to war" section. It goes into more depth about why the war started. Please don't delete it --Crimzon2283 (talk) 15:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I expanded the Prelude to War section to include specific dates(gotten from dialogue in game) and more information about the fighting in Copenhagen. Someone still needs to update the story section. For example, SLAMS goes online in 2017, 2011 is old information contradicted within the video game.66.41.156.50 (talk) 03:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Updated character section

I revamped the character section to have all named characters mentioned in the game as well as a small description of what they do. Any information about their personal lives came from the book.66.41.156.50 (talk) 03:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Amazon.com PC Date

It says that the PC version is out March 3 of 2009. Can somebody cite this? M10 101 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.253.67.28 (talk) 01:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Amazon is not a reliable source when it comes to giving release dates. Most of them are guessed release. --SkyWalker (talk) 08:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

General problems with the article .2

Just to get your attention I made a new one, don't ask me why as I just told you. I have updated the article as much as I can by adding a World War three section, my need to be SERIOUSLY changed though. It is my first real contribution to a mainspace article; most of the time I have been trying to get used to writing for articles by doing lots of stuff on my userpage. Other then that, it still may nedd updating and if not delete the update thing. --'The Ninjalemming' 20:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

  • It needs dates for World War three, NO wait scrap that it doesn't because the time matters on the player and I can't remember any dates being given out during WWIII, well how much more do I have to do before taking off the 'update article' bit.--'The Ninjalemming' 21:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Changed information on Enforcers Corps

I edited some information about the European Federation Enforcers Corps. I took out that their weapons are less precise than the JSF's because in-game, the attack upgrades for the EFEC are focused around accuracy, while the JSF's focus on range. I also took out the part about non-lethal weaponry because even though unit descriptions mention use of LTL tech, it is not seen in game, so I deemed it irrelevant.66.41.156.50 (talk) 04:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Deleted some information

I deleted some sections.

One was the block quote which talked about soldiers taking pot shots and soldiers helping shot buddies. This simply doesn't happen in the game.

I got rid of the part in point of view that talked about investment in the space program, as there's no such thing in the game.

I deleted parts under air strikes which said that current fighters are used. While you can see them in the game, they only serve as on-map objects and are never actually used by your air support.66.41.156.50 (talk) 14:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Added prelude to war date

I added the date of the invasion of Copenhagen by JSF forces as April 7th. My source is that Bankole mentioned it during in the pre-match talk in single player.66.41.156.50 (talk) 00:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

alright then, dates and things about the story of the game can't really have a source anyway, so it doesn't matter. 'The Ninjalemming' 17:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
One could use {{Cite video game}} for this. –xeno (talk) 17:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I knew that "cough" 'The Ninjalemming' 17:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Locations

I think the locations section may require clean up, I unfortunatley can't do it mtself as I have to much to do (in real life). I may help with it later though. 'The Ninjalemming' 17:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Anna Grimsdotter-Third Echelon Director?

I have heard from many different sources that Anna Grimsdotter is the Director of Third Echelon by the events of this game. Does anyone know where this is (if at all) is mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.211.24.52 (talk) 00:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't remember ever seeing or hearing this in the PC version, and I don't think it would be mentioned....Third Echelon plays no major role in this game, other than serving as the intelligence side of the U.S.A. (which again, is just there for talk). Tonysdg14 (talk) 23:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought they didn't mention it. Those sources confused me when I first read them. (Besides, Lawrence Williams would be in charge if Lambert is dead....unless Sam killed him of course. :) ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.139.119 (talk) 20:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry it's been a while since the last comment, but i just checked where I got that info. Check the List of Characters in Splinter Cell article. At the Anna Grimsdotter section, it is mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.198.255.36 (talk) 04:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

does any one know canada's stance in the war or china's (other world powers) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mongeese202 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't know about China, but Canada is suspected by many players to be part of the New Commonwealth along with the Britain and Ireland, meaning it would be neutral in the conflict. Spartan198 (talk) 10:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tom_Clancy%27s_EndWar/Archive_1&oldid=1137258187"