Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Wikipedia?
Dexy
Member Posts: 63
Has anyone else checked out en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_conan
I pointed my browser at that today in the hopes reading about the (so called) good game gone bad, but i was to be disappointed! There is zero mention of any criticism towards the game at all. Looking at the history of the article there was such a section in the past but alas its gone! Making anyone reading that page think that Age of Conan might actually be a good game.
Is this Funcom taking their natzi style forum moderation tactics out into the big bad web? Or just some fanboi editing the world to match their own twisted view of the game.
Its has to be one or the other, i dont think anyone can argue that Age of Conan has been the sucess portrayed here. But it wouldnt suprise me in the slightest if it turned out funcom was behind this. Wikiscanner provided no clues unfortunitly.
We really should be keeping that page updated with the truth of the matter. And remember if your gonna edit. Source it (not age of conan official forum links, you just cant tell if its gonna be there for any lenth of time).
Comments
tinfoil hat any1?
While i appreciate the attempt at... comedy? (I hope anyway)
AoC deserves criticism, that is fact. And to wonder if Funcom has a hand in this is not a huge leap. With their current moderation style and marketing department in full spin, why is it so hard to believe?
Many big companies in recent times have been caught out at this... and thats when they didnt have such a dead horse to sell like Funcom have with AoC.
Let it go trust me you will be better off in the long run
The following statement is false
The previous statement is true
It has been edit from a person within Norway. You can easy make a track of the IP number.
Spoils of War - The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it.
Norway
brlliant. And it may indeed be trackable but i cant say ive ever done it before or would know the methods to do so.
To be honest i find it interesting. I was well and truly taken in by the marketing hype before release of this game. Even for a few of the promised patch updates. I was burnt and i want to see them burnt back.
I want to see Funcom fail, i guess im just that kind of person. I dont agree with their underhanded tactics, unprofessional customer relations and the unprofessional development post release.
When Funcome are gone. Ill be happy.
let it go tbh u don't like the game, fine that's your choice but ur obbsession is not healthy. Move on and find something else, life is far to short to get hung up on a game
Obsession is such a strong word. We prefer the word Passion. They lied, they scammed, they must crash and burn!
Seriously though, that article is extremely misleading. It is way to biased towards AoC.
Please get laid thats all I'm going to say and stop worrying about such useless bull shit.
Someone is locked and loaded.
Exactly, its a passion not an obsession. And im having more fun now with this that i did ingame
As it stands at the moment that entry in wikipedia is very unbalanced. That's the main point of the thread. The funcom involvement i admit is speculation but certainly not impossible for the reasons i have given earlier, its not like its without. Just wish i and the skills to dig deeper into it all.
It is not just Wikipedia, I have seen many articles saying how great this game is, just look at the latest article on this site, and it seems like they are all detached from what the players seem to be saying.
I have only tried this game at a friends house and although I like the gfx I rather listen to the scores of people saying this game is crap than to go out and buy it because it is being portrayed to be so great. I dont think, in the many years I have played MMORPGs, I have ever seen so much criticism towards a game that werent legitimate to some degree.
So I think sites like Wikipedia, but more important, gaming sites like this should take better some responsibility and stop portraying that this game is all super good with so many rewards. Have they even played it for longer than a couple of weeks?
My gaming blog
Its just Funcoms payoffs to the reviewers, nobody would actaully give AoC a good review after all they have done. The shame of it is if Funcom would have spent the money on development that they are spending on marketing it might have been a decient game.
Funcom obviously believes if they tell people long enough how great AoC is they will be brain washed into thinking it a good game.
Luckily my tinfoil hat protects me from their brainwashing attempts
Let it go. Just as you can see who has editted a Wiki page and track his IP, so can other do to YOURS.
You think there wouldn't be any outcry is someone posted something like "Age of Conan is absolute bullcrap!!!11!" and tracked it to a mmorpg.com user?
If there are any articles from renown websites giving a good overview or description of AoC criticism then IMO it should go up there, but that includes gaming sites (such as mmorpg.com) NOT a gameriot blog (even if said blog can be correct). If that criticism is removed from Wiki site THEN it is bad.
RIP Blackguard. May a resurrection come.
Dude no one is saying that we lie or make up stuff
but... Ok
As i said if something is written it should always be sourced. The negative aspects should not be absent from the wiki entry. That's all.
Dude no one is saying that we lie or make up stuff
but... Ok
As i said if something is written it should always be sourced. The negative aspects should not be absent from the wiki entry. That's all.
Well should perhaps have been more clear. While most people here do come with valid concerns and present it in a good way regarding AoC, there are others who just say it is crap, BS, worst ever etc. without saying why and maybe using very negatively loaded adjectives, which makes them look like kids and if said people went and editted the Wiki page then it would just make matters worse.
RIP Blackguard. May a resurrection come.
The problem with Wiki is the climate is very strict. If anything leans toward ways to advertise or talk up the article, it can be deleted.
What needs to be done is the addition of recent data like the 415k. Then to note that they have been taken to task on this number. Anyone can do this...and I am almost tempted myself. Mention of missing features can be discussed without fear of deletion as long as we have "anecdotal" evidence.
If the data is deleted by someone in "Norway", you can then petition the Wiki group to have it reinstated. The issue is making sure the comments meet all guidelines.
Anyone here wish to start a little write up?
We could do something like this
Make a heading called "Criticisms" (like the "Reviews" section) or we can call it "Reception" (look at Tabula Rasa or LOTRO for examples)
We can look at WoW and see they have a section called "Usage problems", which if someone removes the AoC criticism section, it can be used for arguments sake.
In so many words, it is possible to make notations of AoC issues on Wiki to balance the listing.
Anyone wish to help?
My idea as follows
Criticisms and Missing Features
Upon launch, Funcom had several features mentioned for launch, which had to be removed at the last moment due to complications. (blah, blah)...reference, reference, etc...
Legacy
When released sales were noted as being even higher than World of Warcraft's launch. As of (date given) the Investors reports note a population of...blah, blah. But, several sites argue these claims, and that some data does not match, as two reports were given with varying dates, blah, blah..
As of this time, quite a few problems still exists for the game (blah, blah...MUST HAVE REFERENCE)
_____________________________
Everyone see how this is working?
As long as the written information matches reference material (notable websites like gamespot, etc.), then there should be no issue stating this data.
Anyone game? Post your ideas here. I will write the wiki post under my pseudonym I currently have registered with Pedia if anyone wishes to brainstorm how this should be written (and serious discussion please, no "this game suck" posts, as we can see those will be deleted...thnx)
Cheers.
-----
Old timer.
What I find interesting is that anyone would be surprised or upset that Wikipedia is full of lies, mistruths, or slanted commentary. Such treatment is not exclusive to AoC. Take a moment to peruse the Derek Smart article for a prime example of what a mess Wikipedia is.
Wikipedia is a crock of doodoo that has manifested itself as the defacto internet authority on everything. Goes to show you what juicing Google searches can do for you.
-----
Old timer.
The most ironic think about the Wikipedia is how closely it resembles the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy. Anyone remember the part where Ford Prefect wrote a great review of a tavern just to pay off a huge bar bill.
in the end, wikipedia isn't going to help AoC at all. Funcom scammed people into buying 800k boxes and still wasn't profitable.. what is a few boxes they sell because of wiki going to matter. At some point (probably January) there will be an addition that AoC is now free2play and funcom is in bankruptcy.