Talk:Mirror's Edge/Archive 1

Faith's last name

Later in the closing credits there is a news broadcast where Faith and her sisters' last name is mentioned, it is either Conners or Connors. --114.76.104.132 (talk) 15:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Their surname is Connors, source is subtitles in chapter 1 singleplayer intro. - Crisun (talk) 19:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Plot

There are several referances to an election throughout the game, a central plot piece is the assignation of a mayoral candidate, so the regime cannot be described as totalitarian, it is a democracy, albeit a malfunctioning one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.16.104.77 (talk) 21:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not necessarily a fair election. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.161.112 (talk) 23:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Visual Style: Reactions?

Is there any word on people's reactions to the visual style of the game, especially the cinematics?

Personally, I was disappointed; we're presented with some great cover art, a nice bullshot on the back of the box, and an awesome in-game visual style, but when the cinematics started, I was turned off. I liked the ones in first-person well enough, but in the rest of the clips, I thought the animation wasn't fitting, and it looked like they were going to pitch Esurance at me. Albino Bebop (talk) 20:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel anything about it one way, or the other, and I can understand why they did it like that, it would of saved them a lot of money, since they didn't have to mocap and lipsync, now they can just outsource most of the work to Korea. --114.76.104.132 (talk) 15:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't think it was anything to do with outsourcing, I thought it was just a stylistic choice they made that some people disagreed with. 152.91.9.219 (talk) 03:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Parkour

Added some parkour references. Citations not appearing at bottom of article. Sheeeeeeep (talk) 16:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You might find WP:CIT handy in the future. It explains how to format references in articles. It's a little confusing at first, but after I had gone through my first article, fixing refs and filling in missing info and standardising format, it became second nature, so do not be alarmed. clicketyclick_yaketyyak 22:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Gametrailers link

Regardless of whether the page contains "substantial information" as defined by WP:VG/EL or not, it contains nothing that the official site doesn't already offer, as the official site has the same video, and has had it up for three days now. Hence, I think it's fair to remove the link. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 09:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Not in HD, and not in a downloadable format. --MrStalker ^(talk) 10:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Substantial as in the size of it, hence MobyGames and IMDb, which are extensive databases of information. Note under "Inappropriate external links" in lists: "The video game's page at 1up, GameSpot, IGN, GameSpy and other commercial video game news and reviews sites - Such links can be seen as promotion of the associated commercial sites." This fits GameTrailers. On a side-note, that sure doesn't look HD to me.clicketyclick_yaketyyak 10:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Click on "HD" under the video. --MrStalker ^(talk) 12:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I've seen GameTrailer links on so many other articles I assumed it's OK, but I recognize it isn't. Fair enough then. --MrStalker ^(talk) 20:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

No issues. I'm not majorly against the link being included, I just don't personally see it adding much to the article. If we were to start seeing trailers as significant external links, articles like Heavenly Sword would be twice as long due to the sheer number of trailers that are often released [1]. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 20:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally I view the trailer to this game as being an interesting external link to the article as it brings information about Mirror's Edge that simply cannot be transcribed. However so as the avoid the whole marketing aspect, how about using a Youtube link which is not uncommon on wikipedia articles? I've found the following to have the best video quality:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JReRu8UDh4

Secondly, I would also like to propose an external link to a producer interview, also hosted on youtube, which gives an insight on the goals which the developers are trying to reach and the angle current in development. Feel free to take a look at it first here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibUZP86HX-4&feature=related

If no one has any objections I will add these two links in a couple of days, however I'm for putting this up for debate :) (On a side note: Man I can't wait for this game ^^) GBobly (talk) 18:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Alternatively we have this link for the trailer which has been posted by EA on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2N1TJP1cxmo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.173.6.67 (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Youtube is still a commercial site. And while trailers are important to a game and potential buyers, they do not belong on an encyclopedia. A trailer is essentially a product commercial. Should we include youtube links of commercials for Macintosh on its page? Not only would things get crowded, as Dreaded Walrus said (and I'm sure we're going to see plenty of trailers for Mirror's Edge before its out), but it also teeters dangerously on the edge of trivial information lists. The guidelines state: "Please use appropriate external link templates ... Only add templates when they provide additional, or corroborative, encyclopedic information to the article." Youtube apparently so fails this criteria that no-one has bothered to make an external link template for it. And does Youtube meet reliable source criteria? As for the interview, if the information revealed in it can be integrated into the article, then go ahead and insert the info in the article and use video (at GT) as a reference. clicketyclick_yaketyyak 18:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Clicketyclick on pretty much all of his arguments, though I would like to point out that there is a Template:YouTube. The reason it is so rarely used is because there is very rarely a valid reason to link to YouTube (most times it is linked is often spam, or copyvios, or something else that goes against our external links policy). Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 19:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Hah, it's not even listed on the page that lists all the templates so I missed it. It is interesting to note that the person who started the page for a Youtube external link is a suspected sockpuppet of a banned user. Make of that what you will. clicketyclick_yaketyyak 19:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Simulation sickness

Owen O'Brien, senior producer, said:

Simulation sickness is when you get a difference between what you see and what you expect to see. So there are little things. Like the little bit of HUD [heads-up-display] that we have is a small reticule that gives you a focal point. If you take that out of the game, you do start to get ill. A bit like a ballerina doing pirouettes — if they focus on something, then they’re fine. Also, the camera in our game does quite a lot of clever things. It’s simulating your eyes rather than your head. I think what a lot of people have done in the past is they’ve stuck a camera in the person’s head and they move around like robots….The field of view is very important. A lot of first-person games have a very claustrophobic point of view, usually to create tension or scares. We’ve got a very wide field of view which gives you much more peripheral view of the city. And you get much less disoriented.

I see a lot of people worrying that they'll get sick playing the game after watching the video of gameplay, but they took out the reticule from the video, so most people probably don't know that there's a solution built in for simulation sickness, and it's worth mentioning that this game has something more akin to peripheral vision than other first-person games. This is a very important piece of information, but I just don't know how to work it into the article. clicketyclick_yaketyyak 22:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I added it but I'm still not sure about its placement. clicketyclick_yaketyyak 22:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Release Date Unconfirmed

I can't find EA DICE confirmation of the release date quoted here. If noone comes up with it in a few days, I think the release date should be taken down until EA DICE confirms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.73.21.1 (talk) 08:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find anything but the ref already given and this: [2]. There's an official "late 2008" confirmation in this video: [3]. HertzaHaeon (talk) 10:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

EA Confirms Simultaneous Release on Xbox 360, PS3, PC

EA has officially confirmed that Mirror's Edge will not be released as a timed-exclusive for the Playstation 3. Mirror's Edge will be released simultaneously for the Xbox 360, PS3, and PC. EA Officially said: "Mirror’s Edge will be shipping this winter on PS3, XBOX360 and PC. Mirror’s Edge will not be a timed exclusive for PS3."

Here is the website citation that proves this: http://buttonmasher.co.nz/2008/08/25/ea-mirrors-edge-will-not-be-a-timed-exclusive-for-ps3/ Mike mgoblue (talk) 23:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, no, this doesn't mean a simultanous release for all three platforms. "This winter" does actually span a possible release period of several months. Amazon.de mentions a release date of January 8th, 2009: [4]. --Klaws (talk) 17:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Demo

Added some info about the purported demo; if anyone can, please add a reference -- I cannot remember my source (although it was a legitimate site; perhaps Kotaku reporting another site's news).

UPDATE - Oct. 31, 2008: The demo's been released on LIVE, though I'm not sure if there;s a PlayStation Network version yet.

Vinnie (talk) 00:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

• Demo was on PSN Thursday - i.e. a day before LIVE. Try checking t'internet next time........ ;o) 86.7.209.199 (talk) 02:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Collector's Edition?

EA's website has no collectors edition, and says nothing about a red bag.

(This is Wii24; just not logged in) 24.131.197.59 (talk) 19:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Logo reference in image

Wouldn't the logo resemble the shape around Faith's eye, rather than the shape resembling the logo?

Desirsar (talk) 06:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, unless the logo has any other use that's how it should be seen. But it seems like OR unless sourced (either way it's said). Rekija (talk) 22:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay after playing the game it seems that logo is meant to mean "runner" or at least Faith's group of runners. So maybe not. I say remove it until it's sourced anyway. Rekija (talk) 00:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Wired article

Thompson, Clive (November 17, 2008). "Victory in Vomit: The Sickening Secret of Mirror's Edge". Wired News. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

"Mixed" reviews?

Mostly 8's and 9's, with a couple of 6's and 5's? I'd call that "mostly positive", not mixed. I won't make the edit, as I'm not experienced with Wikipedia and for all I know there's some strict rationale governing adjective use, but the reviews for this game don't seem "mixed" to me. Almost every well-reviewed game has one or two detractors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.163.80.161 (talk) 02:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Asian/Eurasian?

Which is she? Common consensus seems to be that she's (east) asian, though the interview cited clearly states "She's Eurasian." And her last name is Conners, implying western ancestry. -128.103.10.17 (talk) 18:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

the consensus is irrelevant. she is Eurasian. [5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.218.156.200 (talk) 19:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Do we have any reliable sources to back this up? ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 20:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

read the source, [6]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.218.156.200 (talk) 03:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

OK. I've re-added it with the source. It took more time to find where it had originally been mentioned than it did to re-add it... ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 10:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

FUNNY, she really looks asian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.88.127 (talk) 05:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Deleting zero puncuation qoute.

His entire gig is sarcastic humor, not actual fact or true opinion. He's proved himself to say anything, just to cause a stir in the crowd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.65.158.154 (talk) 10:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

He is still considered a reviewer.

"Zero Punctuation is a series of video game reviews created by Ben “Yahtzee” Croshaw and produced for The Escapist."
"The reviews became vastly popular, leading to a four hundred percent increase in the Escapist's traffic."
"Croshaw, more often than not, provides highly critical reviews of games, usually focusing on a game's faults."
"The reviews are not universally negative though, as he praised games such as Fallout 3, Thief series"

Zef (talk) 16:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, his comments shouldn't be included in articles. Fin©™ 16:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Whilst he does provide highly critical reviews he doesn't say something just to cause comment. He gives his own opinion of the game, just like any other reviewer. He is a game critic and reviewer and should be regarded as such.--58.106.201.116 (talk) 05:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd say he does say things just to cause controversy - look at his review of SSBB. This has been discussed on WT:VG anyway, if you feel differently you should bring it up there. Thanks! Fin©™ 16:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

That is a very strong argument you give Fin©™. And yes, his "Gig" is tarcastic humor, but his reviews are factual. What part of "citing its fundamental design, shallow plot, game breaking bugs and short length; while still stating that its existence is a positive thing due to it being original and trying something new." is not true. Just because you don't like the negative review, doesn't meen that it is not true. Did the game not have a shallow plot, bugs, and was it not very short? Yes it was. Zef (talk) 16:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Heading back to kindergarten, those aren't facts, those are opinions. Opinions can't be "true" or "false". Things like length of time are relative (and on a side note, Portal was like an hour long and he worshiped it like a god) As for his opinions, they are more entertaining and less objective, and are not good sources, in my opinion. Nar Matteru (talk) 16:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) There's no need to be sarcastic! He's an entertainer first and a reviewer second - his reviews may be factual, but he deliberately concentrates on the negative to make it more entertaining. Edge gave Mirror's a negative review, I've no problem with that. The issue isn't with the negativity, it's that he can't be considered a reliable source. If I were to post a review of Mirror's blasting it, and I got a load of hits, would that make the review notable or reliable? No, it wouldn't. There's existing discussion at WT:VG, bring it up there. Thanks! Fin©™ 16:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and when I said "factual", I meant he doesn't outright lie in his reviews, not that what he says is universally true. Thanks! Fin©™ 16:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that it is a review though? Zef (talk) 16:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

A review in the sense that when I say I think a game is good, I'm reviewing it. It's in no way notable or reliable and shouldn't be included in the article. Thanks! Fin©™ 17:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I've changed my mind. You're right, it probably shouldn't be included although I still think he doesn't just say things to cause a stir, he actually didn't like brawl. Is this the first time someone conceded on the internet?--58.106.201.116 (talk) 05:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually I put that there. I only did so because, even though he might be more of an entertainer, he is still a reviewer. Also, the game having bugs is not an opinion, if it is actually documented. One more thing: even though he exaggerates all the negative aspects of a game, that helps you notice the problems that much more, which may or may not be a good thing.

I hope that didn't sound mean in any way, I'm not very good at counter-arguments. I have no problem with you removing the post. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.14.8.120 (talk) 01:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I hope I do not have to remind you that all reviews are based on opinion and not solid scientific evidence. So if you have a problem quoting one that is being baised if you quote any others. It is wikipedias task to remove bias, and reception is in of itself biased on thier opinions so the best way to keep it unbiased is incluse the biased information from most well known sources. If you have a problem quiting him directly, there is always the art of paraphrasing or describing how he reviewed the game. an example "Zero Punctunations, Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw gave this game a particularly scathing review, going so far as to reference it in later episodes of his video reviews as being a retard for purchasing it." or of course to similar extent. --the One, the Only, Wikipedia Lurker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.214.6.81 (talk) 11:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I must admit that I have not read any of his reviews - however, it sounds like the debate here is whether Zero Punctuation is a reviewer or a parody artist. If the latter is the case, then his quotes are not appropriate here any more than Weird Al's thoughts on the Amish belong in an Amish article. LogosDiablo (talk) 01:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Gamasutra article

Just read this Gamasutra article on the game. It might be a useful source of quotations to incorporate into this page - into the "Reception" section, and possibly elsewhere. Here are a couple that stood out for me:

• "Unlike Assassin's Creed, which adapts the fluidity of parkour by making movement consistently easy, Mirror's Edge adapts that fluidity by making it hard."
• "The game is a shooter that makes you hate to shoot"
• "Whereas so many games simulate unlimited power, Mirror's Edge shows us the limits of power -- not only that of Faith, but that of the entire first-person shooter genre. [...] Mirror's Edge replaces the pleasure of violent engagement with the pleasure of running away."

--Nick R^Talk 17:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Added to reception section. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 23:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

City Name

The article says the city is unnamed, but I'm pretty sure it's called New Eden. Can anyone confirm?

Kronos o (talk) 23:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

According to GAME, it is called Edge City. However, I think we need a few more reliable confirmations of this (or of other names) before it can go in the article. ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 08:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, after some more Googling, Edge City is the only reliable reference I can find to a city name. "Ubiquitous" was mentioned as a city name on a forum, but nothing reliable; the same for "New Eden" - it is mentioned as the name of a level, but not confirmed as the name of the city.

I'm willing to leave it as unnamed, unless more reliable sources come up for a particular city name. ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 08:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

New Eden Is The Name Of A Level. It's Um The Mall. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.203.210 (talk) 00:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

New Eden is the mall. Source is the audible advertisements that can heard in the elevators inside the mall. LogosDiablo (talk) 01:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

One level mentions "lower east side" which means it has to be nyc, as most places have an "east side" the "lower" part seems a bit of a give away. The architecture looks more like Nagoya or Guandong. I think it might be fictional... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.16.104.77 (talk) 20:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Platformer vs. Action-Adventure Debate

In my opinion, this game is a Platformer with Action elements. I really don't see what's "Adventure" about it, other than that uh...it's an adventure. Being an adventure doesn't put it in the adventure genre. Regardless, I consider this game to be mostly in the Platformer genre. Just because it is dissimilar to most platformers doesn't mean it's not a platformer. Kronos o (talk) 14:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree. LogosDiablo (talk) 01:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Sequel/ trilogy

I heard that they plan to make another 2 follow up games to make a mirrors edge trilogy. In the article there is no sign of any sequels though - im pretty sure they are going to make at least one —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.9.6 (talk) 16:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? We can't just go adding hearsay into the article. ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 19:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought EA had officially anounced it, just by typing it in google i found loads of responses. According to this site EA confimed they are well into the planning stage of a second game http://ultimateplaystation.com/story-459-EA-plans-Mirrors-Edge-2.html

We now have on official statement from the head of DICE that ME2 is in some stage of development. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 23:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Good article

Time for a nomination? AniRaptor2001 (talk) 04:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Nomination added AniRaptor2001 (talk) 23:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

This seems like a good article overall, but the plot section has no citations or wikification at all. You should consider fixing that.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

1984

Does anyone thinks that the history is loosely based on the classic novel 1984 writen by George Orwell? I think this should be mentioned on the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.69.49.83 (talk) 21:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, but we need a reliable source to make the connection. Any totalitarian information-controlling society can be called "orwellian". Rodface (talk) 15:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Parkour vs. Freerunning

Let's figure this out; most sources refer to Mirror's Edge as a parkour game. Some feel that it is actually a freerunning game. From Wiki's article:

"The term freerunning is sometimes used interchangeably with parkour. While freerunning is more to do with expressing yourself within your environment, parkour is aiming to get from A to B the fastest. However, there is some controversy over the exact definitions of the two terms."

It is clear that the goal of Mirror's Edge is to go from A to B quickly and safely. Would that mean that it is definitively a parkour game? Discuss. Rodface (talk) 15:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The idea that the expressed opinion that parkour and not free running is about reaching a certain destination some how proves that Mirror's Edge is a parkour game is nonsense. The lack of "cat-like" movements, the addition of combat and use of surroundings for combat ("freerunning is more to do with expressing yourself within your environment" right?), the reference to Faith and the others are "Runners" (pointing to for freerunners), Faith's monologues about the freedom she finds living on the edge (returning once again to the critique of freerunning versus parkour), along with the emphasis by the game designers on freedom of movement (not sticking to strict precise movements found in parkour), etc clearly demonstrates that Mirror's Edge is a freerunning game. This idea of labeling it parkour comes from the self-described intelligentsia, who having read previously about parkour inspiring freerunning, have dictated that this game called the former instead of the latter. Not understanding the principles of parkour, the strict adherence to specific "efficient" movements, etc these individuals have decided that since freerunning was inspired by parkour, it isn't worth of name recognition in this case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.189.233 (talk) 20:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Page 9 of Mirror's Edge Instruction manual emphasizes that Faith honed her skills in the city, pointing once again to freerunning as it is focused on movement in an urban environment. Aside from this, considering the various paths available to players (freedom of movement instead of strict adherence to parkour), and the absence any mention within the game and other official material of even the word parkour (all individuals are describes as "Runners"), it is clear that this is not a parkour game. During my edit last night, I found that one user made a purposeful error in naming a roll a "parkour roll", to emphasize their belief that this is a parkour game. I am content with labeling this a roll, but if contributors want to be picky about its name, Page 7 of the instruction manual labels it a "skillroll". Once again, omitting parkour references from this title seems rather purposeful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clancop (talk • contribs) 20:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I'd like to start by saying that I'm confused by your assertion that Faith does not stick to precise movements; Mirror's Edge is a video game, where it is difficult to program anything beyond a set of precise movements that are executed through joystick and button commands; a true freerunning game would be much harder to design than a parkour game, I believe.

I also have to disagree that we will find the answer to this inside marketing materials and in the semantics of the terms used within; this is a game developed by a Swedish branch of an American company, intended to be marketed to a worldwide audience, and dealing with either a discipline with a French name or a British one. EA's marketing team would not select a relatively obscure term like "parkour" (its prominent appearance in The Office notwithstanding) to describe the style of the gameplay in ME: "running" is much more understandable in all languages, and does not necessarily indicate that the game is a freerunning game.

I sense that there is a belief that Wikipedia's content, exhaustively researched by enthusiasts as it may be, is insufficient evidence to decide whether Mirror's Edge is a parkour or freerunning game. In this situation, I would normally turn to the dictionary for a short, concise definition, but it appears that Merriam-Webster, certainly an authority in that area, has yet to recognize the terms or include them in their online dictionary. Please correct me if I'm wrong. In the meantime, let us turn to our very own Wiktionary (with all its caveats):

A parkour vault, which I think we can all agree is used quite commonly in ME

• From wikt:parkour: An athletic discipline, in which practitioners traverse any environment in the most efficient way possible using their physical abilities, and which commonly involves running, jumping, vaulting, rolling, and other similar physical movements.

• From wikt:free running: A term introduced by parkour practitioner Sebastien Foucan in a programme called Jump London as a synonym for parkour, the usage has since changed through the adverse reaction of parkour practitioners to somersaults and non-efficient movements being introduced to the discipline.

I am far from familiar with these disciplines and their associated terminologies, but it seems that there is issue being taken by parkour practitioners with particular moves that have been introduced into the newer (?) freerunning, such as somersaults. I may be wrong (it's been a while since I've played) but I do not believe a somersault, for one, is part of Faith's repertoire; she executes a forward roll upon landing but does not somersault after jumping. There may be other freerunning moves that she does exhibit, I'd be happy to hear about it.

I would finally like to submit as evidence the following Google searches: Google: 'mirror's edge freerunning', and Google: 'mirror's edge "free running', Google: 'mirror's edge parkour'. While the first two turn up a total of roughly 214,100 results between the two, the latter "parkour" search turns up 895,000 hits, including reviews from notable sites such as Crunchgear, Wired, 1up, Kotaku, and Eurogamer. It is clear that the body of verifiable content ("intelligencia"?) on the internet agrees with the assertion that Mirror's Edge is a game based on the parkour style, rather than freerunning.

From this short investigation, I am satisfied that Mirror's Edge is more a parkour game, than a freerunning game. However, I acknowledge that the boundary between the two is quite fluid and by no means defined. I believe the game's article would ideally reflect that. More important than this perception, though, is the evidence of the dominance of the parkour interpretation of ME among verifiable sources online, the very same sources used to build this article. This alone would be reason enough to preserve parkour as the term used in this article, based on Wikipedia's policies.

Thanks for keeping it civilized; I'll refrain from reverting any edits until we've reached a consensus. Rodface (talk) 00:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I would first like to say that your argument, though you believe is well-thought out, is actually full of holes..

The idea that a free running game would be harder to make is just silly. Bruce Lee made a point in defining his style as "no style", a free flowing martial art which isn't constrained to any particular set of moves, but adopting various techniques in order to surpass other fighting styles. Now, according to what you believe, you couldn't make a game based of Bruce Lee, and yet you know as well as I that every fighting game depicts him in one form or another, as well as the various games that have followed his movie exploits. It is due to the constraints of the format, not due to the chosen subject, that such motions are limited. The same could be said with skateboarding, skiing and snowboarding games, as they have also been unable to capture all motions.

As for your comments on how the word, "parkour" is somehow obscure, ever since Jump London, the sport itself has become very popular. The short parkour scene in Casino Royale peaked the interests of various armies who wish their soldiers trained in this style. In any event, though you may believe that "parkour" is too obscure for marketing purposes, its increased popularity may have actually helped sell this game a little better. We actually did see Sebastien Foucan in one of the promotional videos for Mirror's Edge (which is actual evidence against your claim of it being obscure), but it his popularity and expertise that they were using to help sell the title, not the sport he practices. Your claim that the terminology was somehow key to marketing is an unsupportable claim and with the popularity of "parkour", it is nonsensical. Running was chosen because running is what Faith does.

As for your point that Wikipedia is exhaustively researched, many article may be, but there are numerous errors and purposeful omissions that have condemned it to be a second-class source, at best. Being a history student, I have met only one professor in my years at both the University of Ottawa and Carleton, that has taken Wikipedia as a viable source for term papers. Even than, this professor scrutinized work that was in any way reliant on Wikipedia articles. The issue here is that Wikipedia editors usually have their own reasons and beliefs which are not always agreeable with the facts. A great controversy was stirred up when Barack Obama's article was wiped clean of references to Bill Ayers and other unwanted associations which would make the President look bad.

As for your definitions, the one for freerunning has nothing to do with a description of the style itself, instead discussing the feelings of parkour enthusiasts who believe it is inefficient. Freerunning may be the "offspring" of parkour, but that in no way means that it itself isn't an athletic discipline with very similar goals. Matter of fact, lacking a timer (outside of Time Trials mode) tends to show that this game isn't about getting from point A to point B as fast and as safely as possible. From the definition given previously, one could argue that Super Mario Bros for the NES was a parkour game. You could say that the police and other forces that chase Faith act as a timer, but there are also sections of this game dedicated to puzzle solving where players can take all the time they need.

You "parkour vault" gif is entertaining, but only that. I did such exercises in my gym class, vaulting over a vaulting horse, and we see depictions of this very exercise in Agatha Christie's Point - Cat Among the Pigeons (Ms. Springer's gym class) and Ranma 1/2 - Les Miserables of the Kuno Estate (Akane and her classmates vault over the vaulting horse). You make my point however in that since a move appears in the "arsenal" of parkour techniques, many believe that this move is somehow unique to parkour. For example, body rolls when landing are taught by gym teachers and military trainers alike, and neither have to have parkour training to do it. Returning to the running vault, I don't remember doing that in Mirror's Edge. When approaching a waist level obstable, Faith does a simple one-handed vault, which is demonstrated by the twist in the camera sideways during the motion. Even the Mirror's Edge TV spot "A Leap of Faith" depicts this motions that is found in various actions movies, including Rush Hour, and to my knowledge neither Chris Tucker, nor Jackie Chan are trained in parkour. So what is the point of this? Well, we see a lot of moves found in parkour displayed here, but they are also found elsewhere. On the other hand, we don't see parkour specific moves like the "Saut de précision" or the "Équilibre de chat". Matter of fact, we don't see Faith displaying the cat-like movements (crawling in a vent doesn't count as a lack of space forces her onto all fours) of parkour experts like Sebastien Foucan in Casino Royale, who is seen running at times on all fours, like a cat, while being chased by Daniel Craig (James Bond).

As for your comment on somersaults, I believe its exclusion from the title is because the constant shifting camera would make the game rather confusing. The landing roll is unavoidable since Faith does find herself jumping from high heights ALOT, but it makes more sense that they remove it from her move set as it wouldn't allow users to properly plan their landings. Retro Studios got around this with Metroid Prime by not shifting the camera during somersaults (Samus is known for her somersaults and somersault attacks), and while this is supposition, I believe it is a more rational conclusion than saying "this is proof that this is a parkour game". If you want freerunning moves, you are going to be hard pressed to find them. I will however point specifically to lack of Équilibre de chat when on a ledge. She doesn't move with her feet, nor is there a way to speed up ledge crawling. Faith moves like any untrained person would hanging for a ledge.

As for your evidence through Google search, I am unimpressed. As Mark Twain said, "A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes". For example, I Googled "Sarah Palin Trig" and got 162,000 results, while I then Googled "Bristol Palin Trig" and got 1,130,000 results. While Bristol couldn't have been Trig's mother, having been pregnant with Tripp at long before Trig was given birth to, the fact remains that there are more website dedicated to the idea that Bristol is Trig's mother than Sarah. Even with this overwhelming belief that Bristol is the mother, the facts are still the facts. Your Google search test simply proves that since this article, as well as other misinformed articles say that Mirror's Edge is parkour, many people, sourcing this misinformation, have come to believe this. You can cite Wikipedia terms covering this sort of issue, but without any substantial proof, you have yet to present a solid argument.

The fact that this game has almost purposely omitted the word "parkour", the fact that Faith doesn't have any moves in her arsenal that are parkour specific, the fact that this game is in an urban environment, the fact that emphasis is made on Faith's training in the urban environment (as per the Wikipedia freerunning article's description of the sport) and the fact that emphasis on Faith finding freedom in "running" and living "on the mirror's edge" (as per the Wikipedia freerunning article's discussion of the sport being one of free expression), all point to the logical conclusion that Mirror's Edge is NOT a parkour game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.189.233 (talk) 02:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I suppose an apology is due. I opened this topic under the impression that this could be concluded quickly and quietly. A little more digging around the internet and learning about the parkour/freerunning debate has revealed to me that it's... largely pointless. Freerunning and parkour seem to be quite similar, and the "free expression" that you connect with "living on the mirror's edge", is, well, a cute little bit of copy, but doesn't actually reveal anything about this business. This tells me a bit more: I don't believe that ME features any of the aesthetic flairs that "PK/FR practitioner of 7 years" points out as characteristic of freerunning. There's no button to make Faith do a random cartwheel, and while her movements may be graceful, they are always functional. At the same time, Faith's movements are definitely more extreme and creative than what you would see in parkour. But she's jumping between buildings, 300 feet up in the air, so that's to be expected.

I must say, you seem quite versed in the terminology of these disciplines, and knowledgeable of those who created and practice it; but rather than attempting to educate me in it, you seem more content to show off your knowledge in an arrogant, pretentious fashion. Which sucks. But it's alright, I have no real problem with how you choose to relate to others in this space, that's your business. Forgive me if I'm being harsh; I'm just a bit bored, and tired of dealing with edit wars at other articles I put a lot time into, in order to learn more about their subjects. I also do quite dislike people who dismiss Wikipedia as "second-class material", as if to diminish the work that contributors put into these articles, especially articles more important than those about videogames featuring asian girls jumping off of skyscrapers (not a bad thing, but working on this doesn't contribute a whole lot to advancing the world's body of knowledge, etc etc).

Anyway, I clearly don't know squat about this stuff, so I'll stick to what I feel that I am knowledgeable about, which is Wikipedia style and policy. The selection of appropriate terminology via analyzing the magnitude of search engine results is a valuable tool for determining how we should present things in Wikipedia to ensure that it's understood by the largest audience possible. Your counterexample does little more than reveal your literary preferences and interest in Sarah Palin's offspring. We deal with verifiable content here, as you can see in the statement right below the edit box that you'll be pulling open to reply to my comments. If ME is referred to as a parkour game in the overwhelming majority of cited publications and search results, then should be what goes into the article. Your logic or mine, ultimately, do not matter; if you can provide a source that meets the inclusion criteria that adequately describes ME as a freerunning game, and defeats the position that it is a parkour game, then it should go into the article. However, it will still need to be balanced by all the reviews and news pieces, i.e. the meat of this article, that describe ME as parkour.

What I have gathered from crafting this reply is that there is really no way to use logic to determine if this game is specifically a parkour or a freerunning game. As long as there is debate over what each is or is not, and as long as the boundary between these young disciplines remains so fluid and ill-defined, there can be debate over what ME is. It is safe to say that it is an action-adventure game with a character that uses moves drawn and inspired by parkour and freerunning, as described by producer Owen O'Brien, at around 1:20 here. The production team seem to specifically avoid defining ME one way or the other, as if to avoid the very discussion that we're having here. In any case, Wikipedia is not the place for this debate; here, we stick to Wiki's policies, and include only the contents of verifiable sources, to the best of our ability. For the sake of continuing the discussion, I hope you are able to find a source that resoundingly defeats the consensus that ME is an example of a parkour title, if you believe that consensus to be incorrect. Best of luck. Rodface (talk) 05:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Who is being arrogant and offensive? "A cute little bit of copy"? So you dismiss my evidence because you don't agree with it or because you don't like being corrected? I pointed directly to the Wikipedia article about freerunning, which states that freerunning is "following your own way", a sort of self-expression which is highlighted in Mirror's Edge's emphasis on "freedom", which you now discount. Let's take this further. As described in the article, in freerunning "you may employ movements of your choosing", not strictly adhering to parkour movements. In this, Faith is sticking to her "way", just as Sebastien Foucan adheres to his "way". Will you acknowledge that at least? Of course not. So much for Wikipedia crediblity, especially as even you will discount what is written there.

"Your counterexample does little more than reveal your literary preferences and interest in Sarah Palin's offspring". This isn't about preference of interests, it is about demonstrating that Google searches don't prove anything. You, not being able to prove your point with known facts, point to a Google search, which I demonstrated with my test to be a dubious proof of anything, be it Mirror's Edge's style or Trig's parentage. Besides, what is wrong with following politics? This was a big story, and until it was revealed that Bristol was pregnant with Tripp, the majority of bloggers believed she was Trig's mother. Knowing the facts of this case (not a preference in what to believe about this story), we still see a majority of Google searches denying this truth. All I did was demonstrate the dubiousness of your claim and instead of admitting it is a poor proof, you cite Wikipedia terms to me.

Cite the video all you want, especially since it undermines your argument as well. I don't mind seeing this as a mix-match of free running and parkour, as you can make the argument that the bulk of Faith's moves are "efficient", but don't point to this then say, "well, by default this is a parkour game". Excuse me? How does that logic even make sense. Why is the burden of proof on me alone? You didn't make the case, you didn't like being corrected, and now somehow I am wrong? The burden of proof is on both of us, and while I have made a very strong case, you would rather dismiss what I say and quote the Wikipedia rule book to me. Why not actually debate my points, maybe correct my mistakes, instead of taking away the ball and going home? Debates aren't always pretty, and things can get heated, but that doesn't mean you turn away when things don't go your way.

So after all this, what do you do? Dismiss my entire argument, dismiss my edit, claim that this is all trivial as it doesn't advance the world's body of knowledge. That right there is about the most arrogant thing I have heard on the internet. You aren't some kind of philosopher, you are, like me, someone who feels they have information to add to this online encyclopedia. I won't admit to being a avid Wikipedia editor, but sometimes I read things on it that get under my skin, misinformation passed off as gospel truth. If this is actually as important as you claim it is, why would you walk away from an opportunity to correct a mistake? One article is to be treated as another, and while other articles are of subjects which are more important to society, the integrity of this entire online encyclopedia rests on whether or not the facts in all articles are right. You dismiss one edit, you might as well dismiss them all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clancop (talk • contribs) 06:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Not gonna lie, I wrote a big long reply to this and then realized there's not much point in arguing. I've had a bad day and I'm not in a great mood, and I can tell that you might just not be aware that you're coming off a bit over the top. You clearly know what you're talking about, and there's a very good chance that you're right and my original position (pure parkour) was wrong. Thus, I've elected to support a new position, that this is an action adventure, first-person game where the player's character performs movements inspired and derived from parkour and freerunning. This position is verifiable (video interview with O'Brien) and I believe takes into account your misgivings about referring to these movements as purely parkour, while not ignoring the blurry line that exists between the two disciplines. Regarding throwing the book at you, I apologize, but that's how we keep this place shipshape; sometimes I get annoyed at what gets excluded because of the rules, including truths and other things that the world would be better off knowing, but it says verifiable in blue under the edit box, and we have to stick to that. Logic is great, but we deal in sources here, illogical, biased, and outright wrong as they might be. Anyway, head over to the article space, check out my edits, let me know if you agree, we'll pick this up again later. Rodface (talk) 07:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

"Sci-Fi"?

This was just added to the infobox. Mirror's Edge is undeniably set in the future, but can it really be called science fiction? I don't recall seeing anything that couldn't exist today in it. --Tom Edwards (talk) 12:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

placeholder ref in re: ME to Spider-man

I'm not sure we can add this yet, I want to see where the vg journalists take it... [7] (comparison of ME to the new Spider-man movie trailer...) --MASEM (t) 15:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Mirror's_Edge#Plot - no RS

Unfortunately I see no sign of RS supporting this part of article Bulwersator (talk) 18:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Plot sections are presumed to be sourced to the original work itself and does not need citation; it would be nice if there was RS discussion of the plot, but this is not a requirement. If there are non-obvious statements being made in the plot, we can incorporate snippets of dialog from the game as references. --MASEM (t) 18:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

NBA Jam: On Fire Edition

Should reference to Faith appearing as a character in 'NBA Jam: On Fire Edition' be added to the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.210.241 (talk) 07:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I dont think that it is relevant enough to mention, but she is on it^[1]. mysterytrey talk 17:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Splitting off Faith Connors

I think it might be worth having an article on Faith Connors. She's not at Samus or Lara Croft levels, but she's still a notable "icon" of sorts for female protagonists, namely due to her design, character, etc. As it is in the article, we're not really covering her all that much, mostly just her role in the gameplay and plot. Some sources I found; hopefully there should be more, but you know life:

• Gamasutra: "DICE's Channon: Mirror's Edge First-Person View About Character Connection"
  • "Analysis: Memorable Game Characters, Mirror's Edge And Picture Books"
• Game Informer: "Creating Character: Ten Faces We Won’t Soon Forget"
  • "We Hardly Knew You"
  • "The Snubbed List"
• GameZebo: "5 games you'd find in Romney's binder full of women"
• GameDaily: "Babe of the Week: Faith (Mirror's Edge)"
  • "Babe of the Week: Chicks with Baggage"
  • "Babe of the Week: You've Got A Purdy ________"
• IGN: "The Wednesday 10: Gaming Heroines"
  • "FAQ Reader's Pick: Game Gal of 2008"
• GamesRadar: "100 best heroes in video games" (#96)
  • "Commander Shepard has never looked so cute in MySims SkyHeroes" (Faith's cameo in SkyHeroes)
  • "The Top 7... Tasteful game heroines" (#5)
  • "The 12 most inspirational female characters in games"
  • "Gaming's sickest tattoos"
• UGO: "Hot Girls We Wish Were Real"
  • "Video Game Hotties: Who's The Hottest?"
  • "11 Strong Gaming Girls We Never Saw Again"
• 1UP.com: "Top 5 Most Attractive, Non-sexualized Women in Games" (#4)
• Kotaku: "Once Again, Some Japanese Gamers Dislike the Look of Mirror's Edge 2"
  • "Faith Is Not A 12 Year-Old With A Boob Job"
  • "Styling Our Video Game Characters in Real-World Fashions"
  • "My Perfect Imperfect Video Game Heroine"
• GameStar: "Five women from the world of virtual games that deserve greater recognition" (Polish: "Pięć wirtualnych kobiet ze świata gier, które zasługują na większe uznanie") (machine translation so take exact wording with a pinch of salt, not too in-depth)
• SFGate: "Top 9 greatest video game heroines"
• Complex: "PROMO: 10 Hot Female Killers From Video Games"
  • "The 50 Most Badass Video Game Characters Of All Time" (#4)
  • "The 50 Greatest Heroines In Video Game History"
• Entertainment Weekly: "15 Kick-Ass Women in Videogames"

Most reception discussing how she's a strong woman, some general commentary, and of course some sources noting that she's hot. Well, it takes all sorts. Main problem would be a lack of a development section, but I still think the reception warrants a split at least. I'll probably go ahead and start working on the article myself later on if no one either objects to the idea or wants to do it themself. Otherwise, I'm happy to let someone else take over. If someone objects, then we discuss. It's what these pages are for, after all.

Even if we don't split it off, it still might be worth expanding the article about how Faith was designed to be attractive to male and female players, etc. – Bellum (talk) (contribs) 22:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

There's potential, but without checking, I'd be worried on any of those "top x" articles in that list, like the UGO hot girls one - they support but don't provide "significant coverage" needed for notability. That's not all of those you list - the three Kotakus, the Gamasutra ones, etc. are likely usable. There's enough that I think we can create the article without worrying about rapid deletion, but I'd like to see a bit more. Here's something I just found in searching [8] (it's a paywall source though) but that's the type of article that would assure notability. --MASEM (t) 23:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

True. I'll do some more digging, see if I can find anything more. In all honesty, the Gamasutra link doesn't really provide significant coverage of the character. It's just some commentary by the designers on how the first-person helped connect the player to Faith, as well as "being in an action movie, instead of playing it". – Bellum (talk) (contribs) 22:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

There's tons of stuff everywhere. Also Masem is wrong. Look at my recent Black Orchid (Killer Instinct). That's really all you need. Actually not even any sort of reception is needed for character articles, most of them across Wikipedia (comics, novels, films, and so on) usually don't have any. --Niemti (talk) 16:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

We've discussed the use of Top X articles before at WT:VG, and it really all depends on how detailed they get. If the list gives some commentary why that character placed there, okay, that's good (Game Informer's lists typically do this). But most such lists present the character, a picture, and one or two sentences without clarification that is unusable for notability purposes (that requires significant coverage). (Also, and more a subtle point: there is a difference between characters from fighting games, where our coverage tends not to dig down too much onto characters in the article about the video game, and major characters from plot-driven games, where the character is central to describing the work.) --MASEM (t) 16:27, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

That's only your own interperetation. Video game related articles are still an integral part of the broader Wikipedia encyclopedia, where there's no need for anything like that, and never was. If you want some arbitary rules, you'd have to split off and make your own separate encyclopedia project. Also, it's just a silly FPS with less shooting and even more linear gameplay, nothing "deep, man" there. --Niemti (talk) 16:38, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Um, there were several editors involved at WT:VG's discussion, as well as the fact that WP:N applies across the board, so this is not an personal interpretation. And yes, Mirror's Edge actually had a story that was commented on, with Faith at the center, hence the question if she had enough coverage to merit the separate article given that her story is tightly woven in the game's article. For fighting games, which rarely have a storyline, the article on the game is rarely going to give much attention to any specific character, and thus if the character has some development and reception details, there's almost no question that it can be a separate article since these details likely will not be in the game article, and there's no lose of comprehension of either by splitting them up. --MASEM (t) 16:58, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's just your own interpretation of "This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable independent sources to gauge this attention. The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." It's nothing fancy, really. "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a passing mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. That's all. I bolded the key part. --Niemti (talk) 19:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Right, and the more typical top X lists do not "address the topic directly and in detail" if they only provide one or two sentences to support inclusion on the list. --MASEM (t) 19:17, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

It's really not what youn think it is and you don't understand. Wikipedia:Notability#Why we have these requirements: We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. It's really nothing fancy at all. Also, the whole critical reception section is actually not even needed in first place. It's just a nice thing to include, nothing more, and most character articles on Wikipedia just don't have it (see practically any random article in [9] for example, even while disregarding stubs and articles tagged for primary sources). --Niemti (talk) 19:28, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument since any registered user can create a new article. The metric is what passes at GA and FA, and you'll find that character articles (across all mediums) there universally have a reception section that talks about the character more than just their appearance. --MASEM (t) 19:35, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Lol, so now one can't create article that won't instantly "pass at GA and FA"? Wikipedia:Notability#Why we have these requirements I guess is also just "other stuff [taht] exists" but whatever. Anyway, Bellum Stellarum - don't feel discouraged by imaginary personal interpretations. --Niemti (talk) 19:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Niemti, you've been told before that your interpretations of policy are wrong as well as your belligerent attitude and inability to work with others in the VG group, and this is another example. Articles about fictional characters that lack significant reception sections will likely be deleted, as these are considered necessary for a proper character article. The caution here is that how much about Faith can we talk about separately from the game, and I don't think there's much. --MASEM (t) 19:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm right, and you're wrong. Most characters "that lack significant reception sections" (in general Wikipedia) are unlikely to be deleted, becuase there was never a neccesity for such a section, and almost all(!) of them don't have it yet obviously still exist. (I always include reception section, but only because I feel so.) And there's lots of stuff about Faith as character. She's keep coming up in the media almost as often as Jade from BG&E (another overrated "progressive female character" icon). --Niemti (talk) 22:00, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

If they have not been challenged at AFD or undergone a similar review, then they are usually deleted; if not, there's nothing we can say that those have community consensus . If you review Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fictional elements, you'll find how the community expects these. --MASEM (t) 22:12, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I checked, and clicked, 3 articles - it's always about the lack ofn general references for these articles. And in the whole Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fictional elements the very word "reception" appears in any context exactly once (in a comment not related directly to neither of the 57 articles discussed there). And you still don't understand. --Niemti (talk) 02:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Notability requires secondary sourcing - secondary sources are those that analysis and critique the topic in question. By that very nature, with almost no exception, the only way that a character article is appropriate on WP is to have a reception section that talks about the critical analysis of the character. And that needs to be "significant", more than just the character being on a top X list. Primary sources are not sufficient. --MASEM (t) 03:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Once again nothing but your personal interpetation. And yes, "Primary sources are not sufficient." So, you can't use the game as a source, obviously. But this is all. Let me quote this only instance of "reception" in the entirity of Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fictional elements - where you yourself sent me to read:

• Keep - long running major network shows commonly have separate pages for their main characters - Bobby Ewing from Dallas, William Riker from Star Trek TNG, Doug Ross from ER, and on and on. Mmyers1976 (talk) 18:51, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
  

• WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I note, for one, that the Ross article has a reception section that establishes notability. The others, I'm not really sure about. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 18:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

And if you click on this link (here it is: Doug Ross), this "reception section that establishes notability" there is just a series or top lists (including the lists of "hottests" characters alright, and with nothing elaborating why at all), something you like to tell people is allegedly bad for some reason (really no reason).

And so I hope you now finally understood, and would stop discouraging well meaning editors willing to work with your arbitrary/imaginary pseudo rules. --Niemti (talk) 12:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Please read OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, because you're evoking it completely wrong. The only way to tell if a certain article attribute (or lack thereof) has consensus is to look at either articles that have been kept at AFD or those that have passed GA/FA reviews - eg where people are reviewing the articles for its quality, not just because they're the editors of it. The Doug Ross is a terrible example to try to surmise if a reception section can be just top X lists, not only because it hasn't had any reviews, but also because the actor playing the character received award nominations, which is a likely sign one can find more secondary sources about that character.

If you really believe that a character article can survive without a reception section, you have to either show an AFD where one without such was kept, or there is a GA/FA of a character article that passed without any type of reception section. I know I've never seen one myself, as without that, the article is considered sub-par and usually non-notable. And that also applies to when the reception section is just made up of Top X lists that does expund upon the character in any way. This is what global consensus is. --MASEM (t) 14:45, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Stop talking about your illusions. When you first go with "If you review Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fictional elements, you'll find how the community expects these." you can't follow-up "OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" after this "OTHERSTUFF" proved me right. Of course. Because I'm right. And you can go and click this Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fictional elements, which you yourself told me to "review", and actually see what's there (this was the only instance of "reception", which was these random lists of the 'hottest' characters, regarded positively as "a reception section that establishes notability.", which is a direct quote, and there was nothing else there regarding reception whatsover). And now, Jesus Christ, on a bicycle, NOT EVERY ARTICLE IS, OR EVEN NEEDS TO BE, INSTANTLY "a GA/FA", SO IT CAN EXIST ON WIKIPEDIA AS PERFECTLY GOOD CONTENT. Over 99% of all Wikipedia content is neither GA nor FA, yet of course it didn't stop anyone from creating it, and cease discouraging people with your personal opinions and exceptions or whatever presented as any kind of actual rules. Just don't. Stop. Right there. --Niemti (talk) 15:01, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

And you missed the point again. The reason I point to GA/FA or AFD is that is where the article gets wider consensus to determine if it is content-appropriate. You can't point to a random article as you have been doing (including those you've written) and say that's representative of consensus if there's been no involvement by the wider community at large. That's why I point to GA/FA and AFD as where you will find proper examples of what the community at large expects. --MASEM (t) 15:49, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually I can, and I want to tell you something as for the "consensus" thing. Regarding creating absolutely normal, regular Wikipedia articles, not any sort of this "GA/FA" fanciness you want to bring out now despite being completely unrelated. You might heard it before, possibly becuase you said so yourself (just without checking first): "If you review Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fictional elements, you'll find how the community expects these." And I'm done. --Niemti (talk) 16:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

You're refusing to see the point. I brought up deletion sorting because those are AFDs, and that's community vetting of articles, which means examples that come from there (the net result, not individual arguments) can be used to judge consensus. Just like the GA and FA process. Articles that have had no review from the community at large cannot be used as examples of what the community accepts, period. --MASEM (t) 16:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

No, you're refusing to see the point. And I guess you'll just keep misinforming and discouraging editors from even attempting to write content on Wikipedia. --Niemti (talk) 16:56, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Given that if one writes an article that fails community standards for notability that it will likely be deleted, it makes sense to advice editors to do the work to find appropriate sourcing ahead of time before writing, otherwise the writing work will go to waste when the article is deleted. --MASEM (t) 17:06, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

"If you review Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fictional elements, you'll find how the community expects these." --Niemti (talk) 17:31, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

And that's my point. Articles on fictional elements that lack reception are deleted by community consensus. That's why I told you to look there. Reception sections are not optional when it comes to character articles because that is the only way to showcase notability. --MASEM (t) 17:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

And I showed you the only 1 (one) instance of the word "reception" appearing there. It's in the quote box above. Are you now going "lalala I can hear you" or something? Click this link of yours, and "research", as I did when you told me. Then return to me and share your thrilling experience of being confronted with reailty of Wikipedia, instead of your imagination and unrealistic expectations. --Niemti (talk) 17:57, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Btw, I have nothing against reception sections. Another such example of a one-shot female character (and who is actually not overrated), is The Boss (Metal Gear). Also my. It's incomplete, but there's no hurry. A completed one will look like that Sniper Wolf. But this stuff is not even needed for a solid stub if you just bring some proper sources for the other content. And the "hottest" lists is something that perfectly well "establishes notability", which is a quote from what "the community expects" (and which I dound out upion "researching" it as you told me to do right there) but you can't acknowlegde due to you own personal ideal of what Wikipedia is, which is only in your head. --Niemti (talk) 18:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The reason I pointed to the deletion sorting page is that while it is not a policy or guideline page of what is expected of fictional characters, you need to review all the AFDs that are listed in there to understand when character articles are kept or not. It represents the cross-section of consensus on how character articles are to be handled. There is no present wikipedia-wide guideline on character articles, but I can point you to WP:WAF - where we emphasize the need of secondary and out-of-universe discussion of characters, and WP:VG/GL where it is emphasized that we need to tell the reader how and why the character is important via secondary sources. --MASEM (t) 18:23, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Bellum: You can check some recent short (because it's any sort of not long-standing / franchise characters) articles like John Marston (Red Dead Redemption) (still in progress as for design, which is optional) or Morte (my job, unpolished) of how to actually make an article that is more than just okay (where okay = a stable stub to begin with). --Niemti (talk) 15:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Did another dig. Not all of those are great, but I'm still just grabbing things as I see them at this point. Some of the more useful ones, as I see them: [10][11] [12]. Plus some comment's in the second Gamasutra article, and some of the wordier top lists. – Bellum (talk) (contribs) 01:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so took about a year for me to actually get around to it, but Faith Connors is now existent. Expanded sources seemed to cover enough for Reception, rendering it all a bit moot, though I won't object if anyone finds more. Main problem now is the lack of an Appearances section. – Mr. Stellarum (talk) (contribs) 17:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Soundtrack

The soundtrack is listed on iTunes here, if anyone would like to add it to the page. Currently, the linked page under the Soundtrack section only includes the theme song, not the entire game's OST. Nicereddy (talk) 21:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Added.Ionutzmovie (talk) 15:55, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Mirror's Edge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090212221040/http://au.gamespot.com:80/ps3/action/mirrorsedge/similar.html?mode=versions to http://au.gamespot.com/ps3/action/mirrorsedge/similar.html?mode=versions
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081201024331/http://www.gametrailers.com:80/player/42568.html to http://www.gametrailers.com/player/42568.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)