Talk:Assassin's Creed II/Archive 2

15th century

Changed fourteenth to fifteenth in the introduction. 1400-1499 is the 15th century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.8.238.125 (talk) 23:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

AC2 PC's DRM

Found a couple links discussing the DRM Ubisoft is using for this game for the PC, which requires constant internet connection to play, and has been met with alot of negative reaction. Probably worth adding to the page. --90.199.248.210 (talk) 12:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

As it's planned for all Ubisoft games, the general reaction to it likely needs to be at Ubisoft's page, though its impact on AC2 PC sales will have to be seen here. --MASEM (t) 14:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Steam Release Date

You can now preorder the PC version on Steam. However, the release date given by Steam contradicts the release date I've seen everywhere else. According to Steam, the game will be released on March 9th, rather than March 16th. Did they mess up the date or are they actually releasing it a full week early? -Rycr (talk) 00:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I just found out that EBGames and Direct2Drive are releasing on the same date. Was the official release date changed, or do digital distribution customers get it a week early? -Rycr (talk) 00:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

DRM problems

Mephistophelian has deleted entries I have not made. I am very offended that he has been thank for doing vandalism.

Mephistophelian alterations has a pro Ubisoft bias - In this moment no one can play this game due to this DRM problems.

I have made an addition to description of current problems and he has deleted both!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.27.21.41 (talk) 18:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm an unbiased copyeditor. The above IP appears to be struggling with English, hence why it was necessary to copyedit the relevant section. Their edits should be treated with caution. Apologies to HalfShadow for the revision. Mephistophelian (talk) 20:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Attacked?? Oh that's right.. I called you a fascist for censoring the ubisoft DRM debacle. I remember now. Sorry but if you don't like being called a fascist then my advice to you: stop being a fascist. This is not an attack, it's a rational and reasonable observation based on *your* actions, Mephistophelian. You only have yourself to blame for this. It seems from the posts of others here, that I am not alone in this observation. 220.233.16.28 (talk) 11:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Then why are there currently NO mentions of the problems any longer? That's not an edit that's a censoring. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.16.28 (talk) 22:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear fascists: please stop censoring this article and let the world know the truth. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.16.28 (talk) 22:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Your edits were lacking a reliable source, and appear to attack Wikipedia and it's editors directly with the sentence "Oddly, any attempt to mention this here is resulting in censorship as well". If a good source (i.e. not blogs or forums) can be found for your claims, then put something in with an inline citation. Cheers Jwoodger (talk) 22:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding: "and appear to attack Wikipedia and it's editors directly with the sentence "Oddly, any attempt to mention this here is resulting in censorship as well".", Well, this is because they were removing *any* mention of the DRM problem at all at the time. People have a right to know that the wikipedia editors attempted to *censor* the issue! This is not an *attack*, this is documenting what actually happened (both regarding ubisoft AND regarding wikipedia editors!!). Please, have some humility (and honesty!). Thanks.

It's not an attack it's a valid observation, and the page's history supports it. 50,000 people complaining on forums is proof enough that something isn't right. It doesn't require an official statement from Ubisoft to be confirmed or a televised news piece. 2 or 3 reports is anecdotal. Hundreds is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.16.28 (talk) 22:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

you do realize that blogs and forum posts will be the ONLY means of discovering this issue, right? ubisoft will deny it fervently. you are quite simply censoring. this is not my fault, this is yours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.110.152.139 (talk) 23:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Addtionally, addressing editors with the expression "Dear fascists," is clearly an attack and indicates a lack of good faith. As Jwoodger mentioned, the edits in question are unsourced and evidently biased. Mephistophelian (talk) 23:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

(After edit conflict) You may well be correct that the servers are down today. If the outage continues then the gaming press will pick it up and then it might be appropriate to include here. It not really wikipedias place to report on tempory technical glitches, thats for news sites not encylopedias.--Salix (talk): 23:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

This particular temporary outage however is substantial and very relevant to the current technology environment. On the topic of DRM it is of historical importance. It's not merely transient news. It's also a key point to the topic of the game itself and indeed the 'DRM controversy' sub topic within it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.199.76 (talk) 01:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The success of the DRM system

The current cited sources for the success of the drm only state what Ubisoft think of it's effectiveness. While original research/non-reliable sources cant be used to contradict this, it would be misleading if the article cited those claims as facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Belorn (talk • contribs) 21:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

No offense intended but the third citation that I added to that section was meant to address this issue. I'll provide all the relevant extracts from the article I cited:

...PC Gamer: Silent Hunter 5 is cropping up on a lot of torrent sites, with instructions saying that you can run a crack to play the game without needing to be online. Is Ubisoft aware of this?

Ubisoft: We are aware of the many varied attempts to crack Silent Hunter 5 and Assassin's Creed II, yes. At this point, we have not seen or validated any crack that actually allows a gamer with a pirated version to play the entire game. Certain cracked versions do allow for the player to start up the game but are only playable for a very short time...

...Usually we'd want to check the facts of a story, but for obvious reasons we haven't tried the illegal release of Silent Hunter V. There aren't enough reliable reports of either its legitimacy or any issues to judge either way, but we'll let you know if we hear anything definite.

Update: The comments we're seeing on torrent sites seem consistent with Ubisoft's claim that the release is incomplete. Eg;

"When i play a campaign in the game and finish the tutorial, i dock at Kiel and try to select a mission yet none appear."

"crack doesnt work :(

"You cannot select a mission when u reach Kiel"

"Well I finished the first mission, went to Kiel, but after I can't start a new mission. Even if I try to start a new campaign, only the first mission is available"

So clearly, this article's authors listened to Ubisoft's claims then actively verified this claim by visiting a number of torrent sites and reading the comments made by people that downloaded the cracks available. As far as I'm concerned, this is a reliable 3rd party source of information that proves that the game hasn't been cracked as of at least the 4th of March. You can verify this yourself by visiting a few torrent search engines and searching for "Assassin's Creed 2 crack".

I'm sorry but since this is a reputable article that gives evidence supporting the lack of cracks for AC2 without relying on Ubisoft's opinions and since there is no evidence to prove otherwise, I am planning on reverting your edit to again reflect the "no cracks for game" sentence as fact. Since it's my bed time though, I'll give you a few hours to make a reply before I make that edit. XJDHDR (talk) 22:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for waiting before reverting :). You are Correct, a month ago when they checked, this was true and until very recent those observations over the torrent sites was correct. Absolute true/false statements are a bit tricky which is why a slightly different wording to avoid that while still cover what the cited source says might be preferable, but the old text work. Belorn (talk) 02:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Now that I have had a good night's sleep, I looked at what you typed again and decided that it should stay as it is. However, the biggest problem that I have with what you typed is that some people will read that paragraph saying that it is only Ubisoft's opinion that there is no working crack for the game and come to the conclusion that it is nothing more than a publicity stunt to increase sales, make themselves look good or something else.

What I have decided to do is keep what you typed using the original 2 citations as evidence of this then add another sentence after that stating that the third citation that I added investigated this claim and confirmed that Ubisoft's claim seems to be fact (using the third citation to back this sentence up). XJDHDR (talk) 10:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Game cracked

The DRM has been cracked, now its possible to play the game without an internet connection.

This is true and proved, and I remember having seen some reliable sources about this. However, the only source I directly have is this one , that since its from a blog and its in Spanish it must be the worst source ever.

I will try to find more sources tomorrow, but since then can someone help finding them? Or at least remove the "as of some day there is no crack". --Fixman^{Praise me} 02:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

First of all, statements saying "As of such-and-such a date, there is no working crack" does not in any way imply that a working crack wasn't created after that date, it simply states that a working crack wasn't created before said date. And since the provided date is an accurate figure, I see no reason why it should be removed.

As for the DRM being cracked, a crack that allowed you to play without an internet connection has been available from about the day AC2 was released. The only problem is that there are no missions and users get a white screen error at some point. The source you listed above says that the crack still doesn't allow you to play all the missions at the moment and I saw at least two users comment that they were having problems (and no users say that it works). Additionally, a website I follow says that:

Update 4: One month since AC2 was first released, a new partially successful crack for its DRM has become available. However this still does not allow pirated versions to be played all the way through. And finally, I just visited The Pirate Bay and I while I did see a new crack that had recently been added, there were two comments that said the crack still doesn't work in some way.

So in the end, I don't think the current information needs to be changed in any way. If you find some more reliable websites to use as citations, then you may add them in by all means. I think a better idea though would be to put your info below the paragraph saying that the game hasn't been cracked. Something like this:

<As of such-and-such a date, the game hasn't been cracked...>

<New paragraph>

<However, on such and such a date, a working crack was successfully created for the game...>

And finally, no offense intended but try and keep a neutral point of view. I read your previous edit and "Ubisoft's DRM failed to prevent a crack from being created" is not a neutral point of view. First, it can sound like you're insulting the DRM. Second, the definition of whether a DRM system has succeded or not is a debatable issue. XJDHDR (talk) 11:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

According to Pirate Bay the crack is complete for AC2 and although still buggy it does allow play the entire game now. I haven't pirated it myself or anything and all the articles about the topic in the media are old ones from March, so I don't think we can do any sourced updates yet, but at some point this should go into the main article. Valacan (talk) 18:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

As soon as you find any reliable sources which say that a crack has been created, you are more than welcome to add it in. XJDHDR (talk) 23:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

It's more or less obvious on many forums that the offline-server trick works for the entire game. At this point it is a matter of a gaming website picking up on it and then referring to their article somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.14.101 (talk) 00:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

From the first line of Wikipedia:Verifiability The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth, so while I believe it has been cracked I'd still prefer to wait for it to be reported in some of the gaming press. As an encyclopaedia wikipedias takes a more long term view than trying to be upto the minute. But then again there is an article in german on the crack [1]--Salix (talk): 14:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Why not use that German article as source then. It looks as reliable as any other news site for games, and non-English sources can be used when there is no English source of equal quality.--Belorn (talk) 17:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Quite regrettable that this kind of information isn't easily verified. The warez scene of course knows that this game has already been cracked using a cracked mock server software running locally but not many are coming forth with such information in their blogs and especially not in respectable web sites. However, the article probably should underline, that it is the belief of Ubisoft and "mainstream gaming media" that no such exploits exist, like it has been with so many DRM systems before. JJohannes (talk) 01:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

New info: [2] - Reanimated X (talk) 19:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

That link gives me a page not found error: Image:Page not found.

the link is [3]. I added it as a third source.--Belorn (talk) 19:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

DRM section

Note, this is also a partial response to User:XJDHDR's message on my talk page.

I went over all of the sources while I was rewriting it, and the reason I removed the escapist magazine ref was because it was actually referencing Eurogamer. I am not certain on the exact function of the recent crack, so I don't know if it actually removes the connection code. Either way, it's bypassing the requirement.

From Eurogamer again, it says 95 per cent of players were not affected, but a small group of players attempting to open a game session did receive denial of service errors. There's no statement of 5%; it can be surmised, but I wouldn't say that myself. From Newspoint, I do not see an explicit date for when the server emulator was released, so I opted to only mention that it was being developed. - Zero1328 _Talk? 09:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

First, I checked the Eurogamer ref and I see that the article is exactly the same as the Escapist article. Well done and good spotting!

Next, 95% of gamers unaffected = 5% affected. Easy mathematics and no one seems to have had a problem with that formula until now. You wouldn't surmise 5% but I'm more than willing to do so. The phrase about 5% was used because it avoids the use of weasel words and provides a margin of error.

On my talk page, you mentioned that you can't see how "a small percentage" and "was soon developed" are weasel words. From the WP:AWW page: Weasel words are phrases that are evasive, ambiguous, or misleading.

Next, this is what I typed on your talk page (with a few changes):

a small percentage - How much is small? 0.1%? 1%? 2? 5? 10? 20?

was soon developed - When is soon? 1 hour later? 1 day later? 1 week? 1 month?

Those words are ambiguous. They do not provide a specific figure and, instead, ask the reader to estimate their own, a less than desirable situation. Hence, they are weasel words and because of that, they should be removed unless there is a very good reason. Since a reasonably accurate figure of how many users were locked out is available, I don't see a good reason for using weasel words instead.

However, I do have an idea of how this could be resolved:

Instead of saying "5% of users were locked out during the attack", rather say "95% of users were still able to play during the attack". There you are, no weasel words and the article perfectly matches the citations.

But overall, at least this matter can be resolved intelligently, unlike Jasca who just mindlessly reverted everything I typed, making up excuses along the way. -XJDHDR (talk) 16:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I would rather you not try to attack Jasca; It can be said that you're equally at fault for the same thing.

5%, or about 5% is still an extrapolation, and it is not explicitly stated in Ubisoft's statement. It cannot be said that all remaining users unable to play specifically received a denial-of-service error. Also, as I said before, I could not find an appropriate time frame to include in the emulator mention. It is phrased as such because that was the information that was on hand. - Zero1328 _Talk? 21:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

You didn't comment on my "95% of users being able to play" idea (no weasel words and it states exactly what is said in the citations). As great as your explanation is, it still doesn't change the fact that weasel words have been introduced into the article (talking specifically about the percentage of users). I would usually make the edit myself but it seems like everything I do here gets met with some kind of hostility.

As for Jaska, I could provide an entire explanation of my actions and what I thought of Jasca's but I will just skip to the relevant part.

At one point, Jaska decided to stop writing generic edit summaries and honour my request for an explanantion of his edits by writing the POV is the comment "further demonstrating the strength of the new DRM", all i'm doing is getting rid of that whilst leaving the remaining information in the article... done. However, Jaska decided to delete everything instead of getting rid of that whilst leaving the remaining information. So I decided to correct that mistake and add back everything except the sentence that he complained about. I then used another edit slot to add the problem sentence back in stating that I still wasn't convinced that it was a POV. If Jaska could provide a better explanation of why that sentence was a POV, he could have gladly reverted only my second edit and kept the rest of the information intact, like he intended.

This wasn't good enough though. In the next edit, Jaska deleted both of my edits then changed his story to now say that it is actually EVERYTHING that is a POV (as opposed to before where it was only one sentence) AND that weasel words have suddenly appeared in the article (even though a serious investigation would have found no such words). Then he resorted to using derogatory terms and revealed that he is actually biased towards opposing ANYTHING that frames DRM in a positive light. Where was it going to end?

To summarise, Jaska continuously parroted generic edit summaries that gave no explanation of why the edits were made, the few times that a better summary was provided revealed a story that changed itself from one edit to the next and he was being un-cooperative. To top it all, Jaska's last summary made it clear that he had already made his decision as to what the article should say. And here I was simply trying to protect the existing information from those whom I percieved would do it harm. How do you handle people that behave this way?

If you have any doubts about what I just said, please compare what I just wrote to the edit summaries and my first comment and please tell me where I have said something that isn't factual. -XJDHDR (talk) 23:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Whether it says 95%, or a small number, it's the same thing; both are Ubisoft's statements. Saying that 95% were all right seemed a bit awkward to write in.

I didn't ask you to give me your side of the story for that recent edit war. Just don't assume bad faith and stop trying to explain yourself. - Zero1328 _Talk? 00:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

First things first, I'm not sure who this Jaska fellow is, but I have plenty of reaon for reverting your edits. Each time I reverted your edit, the only thing I actually changed was removing the POV comment "further demonstrating the strength of the new DRM"; the other changes were making the new sentance grammatically correct, that is all. Secondly, I am not biased against anything that shows the DRM in a positive light, I just have yet to find anything. In my opinion, the DRM failed to protect the game from piracy, as you yourself freely admit the protection was overcome… who cares if it was a month after release, the fact remains, it was overcome; the DRM failed.

Also, I would like to point out that my comment in the edit summary – "that game got cracked = DRM epic fail" – was written as such for two reasons. Firstly, the summary would not allow me to add any more words, so I had to shorten i,t whilst retaining the point. Secondly, I knew that comment would come across as "biased", exactly as the "further demonstrating the strength" in the article was heavily biased towards the DRM; something you have conviniently failed to appreciate. Also, with regards to my reverting both your edits, I did so because you added the offending line in, as well as leaving the rest of the sentance grammatically incorrect.

Honestly, I don't really care for explaining myself to you. You were in fact the editor responsible for inserting the offending sentance in the first place; so you've merely been protecting your own additions. And one last note, I was not "just mindlessly reverting everything [you] typed, making up excuses along the way", I was fully aware of my actions thank you very much. That is all. Jasca Ducato (talk) 01:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

@Zero1328 I just made some effort to try reduce the impact of the weasel words on the reader. I see that you already changed the small percentage statement into a direct quote from the citations though so maybe my edit is not needed.

@Jasca This is too rich! You do realise that you have just changed your story AGAIN. You never mentioned grammar anywhere (even the edit summaries that had more than enough space to mention it). First, it was only part of the sentence that has a POV, then it is the entire sentence that has a POV AND supposed weasel words in it, and now; the sentence has POV and bad grammar? Like I said earlier, where is it going to end?

Fine though, I'll humour you. Let's investigate your edit and try find the bad grammar you were removing. You basically replaced this:

It was only a month after the PC release (in April, 2010) that a cracked version was released, further demonstrating the strength of the new DRM. The

with this:

A month after the PC release (in April, 2010), a successful crack was released; the

First, It was only a month after the PC release (in April, 2010) that a cracked version was released is not dependant on the content after the comma and it can easily be used by itself, therefore it is correct grammar with or without that content. Also, bad grammar doesn't explain why you changed your story to say that "It was only" is a POV when such a explanation wasn't there before. Then, released; the is an edit that actually INTRODUCES bad grammar. You need to use a full-stop (which was there before), not a semi-colon. From the Semicolon page: "The modern uses of the semicolon relate either to the listing of items, or to the linking of related clauses", neither of which apply here.

Your DRM comment though is completely incorrect on so many levels. Do yourself a favour and read this article: Tweakguides.com piracy article: Page 8. It is probably the best article I have found to clear up misconceptions about DRM. Your explanation basically tells me that all games that have a cracked DRM (even Tom_Clancy's_Splinter_Cell:_Chaos_Theory, which went uncracked for 420 days) are failures. I'll tell you who cares that the game was uncracked for a month. Ubisoft, who had a month of guaranteed sales, and the pirates, who had nothing then decided to throw a temper-tantrum by launching a mis-guided Ddos atack.

If there wasn't enough space in the edit summary to give a full explanation of the edit, the correct procedure would be to put the explanation elsewhere (ie a talk page) then have the summary link to it. If you knew that the comment was going to be interpreted as bias though, you probably shouldn't have mentioned it at all. Like I said numerous times, you never provided an adequate explanation of why you thought the sentence was biased.

Finally, I never said that I wasn't the person that put that sentence in, so what exactly are you trying to prove or disprove? The same sentence which remained in the article for about a week with hundreds of readers and editers reading it every day with no one thinking that there was something wrong. In fact, during that week, there were at least 3 edits made within spitting distance of the offending sentence yet it wasn't altered in any way. When a specific piece of information remains unaltered in an article for that long, you HAVE to give a detailed explanation of why you think it is unsuitable, especially if your edit is soon reverted. -XJDHDR (talk) 08:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I already told you once, and it was just this morning. Continuing this hostility will more or less appear disruptive. - Zero1328 _Talk? 13:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Jeesh! I was just giving an informed reply to Jasca's last remark. Please, tell me: How exactly was my last comment being un-factual or hostile? Actually, my first priority is to only say things that are factual, even if I come across as mean by doing so. Despite this, I myself am impressed with how un-hostile I was being most of/all the time in that last comment. -XJDHDR (talk) 14:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't have to give reasons for every single minor change I make within my edit summary, so my "story", as you put it, has not changed whatsoever. Either way, I honestly couldn't care less on your opinion, the sentance is gone now, so i'm happy. Take some advice, stop being so childish and stop argueing. Jasca Ducato (talk) 17:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Giving a detailed explanation of what you are trying to do is only good advice because it is always better to avoid possible confusion. If you want to ignore it though, then be my guest. I'm not the one who will have to deal with the consequences. And how exactly does not giving an explanation of your (not really minor since you were deleting existing info) actions prove that your story never changed? Anyone with half a brain cell can tell that this doesn't make sense. Truth be told, I actually proved that your story did, in fact, change from edit to edit.

Here is a breakdown of how your story evolved through the edit war:

1) For all except your last two edits, there was a generic "deleting POV" summary.

2) For the second-to-last edit, the summary received an improvement and described how A SPECIFIC PART OF the sentence was a POV (though the summary didn't completely accurately describe what you were doing).

3) Last edit, the story changed and declared that now the ENTIRE sentence "stinks of POV and weasel words" (even though a thorough comparison of the sentence to WP:AWW finds no such words present).

4) Finally, your comment here says that you were actually removing POV and bad grammar (what happened to weasel words?) (though an investigation I did, which I properly documented above, proves that there was nothing wrong with grammar and that it was actually YOUR edits that had the bad grammar).

So please enlighten me, where is the evidence that your story never changed? It is very easy to just make statements but much harder to prove it.

Finally, I couldn't care less about your lack of interest. You WILL hear the truth even if I have to shove it down your throat. As for your "advice", why are you resorting to name-calling? And I am not arguing, I am informing. By your definition, every person that uses hard facts and logical conclusions (eg lawyers, attorneys, debaters, etc) is childish. You have not managed to prove that anything I said here is a lie so until you can prove otherwise, I am not convinced that anything I wrote here is anything but factual (except for 3 or 4 incorrect assumptions I made which have already been cleared up). And since everything I said here is factual, I am not willing to admit that I was the one doing something wrong. -XJDHDR (talk) 21:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

You're a persistent little fella, aren't you? I'll tell you what, before I even bother to read that last comment, I'll give you some advice. Instead of having you waste your life away trying to prove me wrong, i'll merely repeat the last sentance in plain english shall I? Shut it already, I don't actually care anymore [which proves my point that you're stupid; I already said that I don't care about your lack of interest -XJDHDR]. Find something else to whine about please. Jasca Ducato (talk) 11:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I think its time to remind both of you about WP:CIVIL. If you are having trouble coming to an agreement between yourselves then seek further opinions from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games. - X201 (talk) 11:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The current version made by User:X201 looks good. To add a few comments: The sentience "further demonstrating the strength of the new DRM" is a un-sourced conclusion about the effectiveness of the DRM, and conclusions should be left for the reader to make.--Belorn (talk) 20:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Uh, I'm the one who rewrote it, actually. X201 covered a bit of copy-editing, thankfully.

Anywho, aside from the lack of recent civility, the reason you started to appear disruptive isn't because of what you said. It's how you continued to strongly push your statements about Jasca, even though I didn't actually care. Writing one paragraph on the current issue, and four paragraphs on previous edits only gets in the way. You also just said that you're unwilling to change your stance, so, there isn't much more to say. - Zero1328 _Talk? 20:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

@Belorn

"The sentience[sic] "further demonstrating the strength of the new DRM" is a un-sourced conclusion"

...which was never mentioned anywhere in the edit war. I can't be expected to know things that aren't mentioned. BTW, I noticed that you just removed, from the DRM page, a similar sentence to the one that was removed here (which I, admittedly, added as well, not as a serious addition though). The edit summary you provided was very descriptive and unquestionable though. If that was the summary used here, I would have stood down.

@Zero1328

Correction, only the first comment after you said that you didn't care was intended for you. The rest is only there because Jasca decided to join in and they are only intended as a reply to said person, nothing more. As I said before, being nice comes second to facts. If someone says something that is clearly wrong, I will not let them get away with it.

Another correction, I said that I am unwilling to change my stance UNLESS it can be proven that I am a liar (reasons being obvious, I hope). Since Jasca "apparantly" isn't interested in anything I have to say though, I would say that the chances of that happening are probably zero. Which means you're actually right, I'm not going to change my stance. -XJDHDR (talk) 22:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not it was a reply doesn't change the fact that it doesn't really matter now. Both you and Jasca are at fault for continuing to respond to each other. Allowing yourself to be a little rude only made it worse [Evidence? -XJDHDR]. Best to just drop it. - Zero1328 _Talk? 23:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

"XJDHDR: Your explanation basically tells me that all games that have a cracked DRM (even Tom_Clancy's_Splinter_Cell:_Chaos_Theory, which went uncracked for 420 days) are failures."

420 days ? That's pretty good going. 'Fade' (used by Operation Flashpoint' and some of its sequels) from 2001 is still effectively uncracked. The 'Fade' for Arma 2 is definately uncracked, despite claims to the contrary.

"XJDHDR: I'll tell you who cares that the game was uncracked for a month. Ubisoft, who had a month of guaranteed sales, ..."

That's possibly not true in most cases. Tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of people downloaded the uncracked game knowing that it would eventually be cracked. Those people perhaps did not purchase the legitimate version of the game ? -User:113.88.11.64talk

That most certainly IS true. If there is no pirated version of a game available, where does a consumer get the game? The only place is a shop that sells it. Hence, anyone who wants the game has to buy it, hence guaranteed sales. Additionally, X201 below remarked that the PC version has sold over 2 million copies. This is more then double Modern Warfare 2's PC sales, even though most would call MW2 the more popular game. Do the maths! -XJDHDR (talk) 10:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikimedia/Bundesarchiv images in the game?

Okay, I wasn't super-attentive when I completed the game for the first time, but I'm pretty sure that the end credits had boilerplate babble about an image that was under GFDL or Creative Commons (or dual-licensed). I know they used some Bundesarchiv pictures in the game (the captions were visible in the game), so I just assumed that the game developers went hunting for images in Wikipedia or Commons. So questions: 1) Was I seeing things, or do I just have a crazy illogical theory at hand? 2) If not, which images were we talking about? and 3) Are the Bundesarchiv images used in the game also available in Commons? (I think this looks familiar, but I'm not 100% sure since I played the game months ago.) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 21:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Poor Sales ?

July 10th 2010 - I expect some of you also received a promotional email from Ubisoft advertising the Windows version of AC1 *AND* AC2 for ((100*4) /16)) minus 1 pence (I don't want to be accused of spam advertising on behalf of Ubisoft!) Seeing as it was only released in March 2010 surely this is representative of extremely disappointing sales figures ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.136.204.202 (talk) 16:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

It had sold over 9 million units on all platforms up to May this year. I wouldn't call that poor. The PC version is always below console as far as sales go, I've seen figures of 2 million mentioned for PC - which seems a little high to me. This double pack is just a way of mopping up a few extra sales. Until something concrete comes out from their shareholder statement we can't add anything to the article. - X201 (talk) 17:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed! Ubisoft's choice in DRM meant that AC2 didn't have a proper crack available for more than a month after it's release. Logically, people that wanted to play the game in that month would have flocked to the stores and bought it due to not being able to pirate it. I can easily imagine that these factors would mean that AC2's sales figures would be anything but poor.

Sales figures for the PC are lower than consoles because it is easier to pirate on a PC. Otherwise, do those 2 million figures come from reliable sources? I have been wanting to add a sales figure to the "Controversies" section ever since I started editing here to analyse the DRM's effect on sales. Also, if 2 million sales is a correct figure, it would mean that just the PC version of AC2 has, in the last few months, sold as many copies as Prince of Persia did in it's first month on PC,Xbox 360 and PS3; just for interest.

Lastly, are you saying that you can get both AC and AC2 for 25 pounds? From where? I'll take a dozen. -XJDHDR (talk) 18:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Another thing I would like to add. If the over 2 million sales figure for the PC version is correct, this means that the PC version of AC2 more than doubled the number of sales of Modern Warfare 2, which very few would call a disappointing game. -XJDHDR (talk) 09:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello? the game sold 8 milion copies of AC II on consoels, and 2 milion on PC = 10 milion copies! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.144.3.78 (talk) 19:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

New sections

I don't really want to just go out and delete these sections without anyone else's input, but the 'secret messages' and 'notes' sections seem like they should be removed to me. Muskeato 11:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Controversy

There's something very curious about this game. I really liked it, but at the end of it you try to assassinate a Pope (on a very horrible way, you know). I can't believe this matter hasn't caused controversy, it surley has, but the article does not state that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.26.198.77 (talk) 02:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

It's news to me. Being able to kill past fictional individuals is not usually that controversial to the press. Any sources feeding a controversy? Rehevkor ✉ 03:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

No, but it is very strange nobody has made complain about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.202.87.218 (talk) 18:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Well in this case no news is not news? Rehevkor ✉ 18:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Not only the Pope's murder attempt: inside the Vatican you find a large Templar chamber and inside it the goddess Minerva herself... who tells you that the true god has always been the sun, and that it's going to destroy Earth for what Humanity has done to him. Besides, Rodrigo Borgia himself states that the Bible is false, and that the true gods are not known. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.202.87.218 (talk) 20:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Do you personally have issue with this content? But yeah, without sources to support an apparent controversy, there's not much to say. This is not a forum for discussing things outside the remit of the article itself. Rehevkor ✉ 20:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Overly Positive Reception

Well, I seem to be in the minority, but I really did not enjoy this game. Is there really ONLY positive reviews of this game? Is the only thing anyone hated about this game the DRM thing? Normally I wouldn't say anything about editing an article cause it was about something I didn't like, but I've heard that it's unwiki-like to overwhelmingly show one side. However, it's probably okay if all the reviews really ARE that positive. I just have a hard time believing that is the case, since I hate this game with a passion, even though I love the first one. 23:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.72.49.251 (talk)

Clearly if they are all positive reviews then yes they are all positive. You hate the game however that is just your opinion. I'm sure others don't like it either. but its not opinion thats counts here on wikipedia. Ghost07 (talk) 23:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Try and find some negative reviews on the game, if you're sure that it was a horrible game. Like Ghost07 said, opinions don't count. However, I am curious... why didn't you like AC2? I played the prequel before AC2 and I loved both games; not at all disappointing! Cybersteel8 (talk) 14:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, since you asked, I didn't like it because, unlike the first one, it focused way more on the incredibly stupid aliens-are-god plot. Also, I hated the team that put Desmond into the machine thing at the beginning, complete with obnoxious-stereotypical-englishman and overly-rough-independent-woman. I would have expected such things normally, but the first one felt so unique in it's presentation, that I was really disappointed by the very bland and typical presentation shown in the sequel. You couldn't walk during cutscenes, change the angle, or do anything like that anymore. To me, stuff like that was what made the first one more than just a stealth game, and into something very unique and cool. -24.72.49.251 (talk) 18:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Meh, the Ancient astronauts conspiracy theory was fun, even if I, as an archaeologist, know it is a load of bullshit. Still, the editor's opinion of the game does not matter, only the reviewers'. Though, for the record, I loved it. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 10:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Edge gave it 8/10 but still criticised a few things. You could add that review if you like. - X201 (talk) 15:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Unless I am wrong, anything 7+ Is certifed Veryg good-Superior, so yeah, thats not negative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.203.112.147 (talk) 12:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Depends on the magazine. On average Edge score games 10% below other publications. There is only one negative review of ACII that I have found, but because there is only one negative review adding it would give it undue weight (WP:UNDUE) - X201 (talk) 17:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Criticisms and controversies section

This section really does not meet WP:Notability criterion imo. It is not really controversy like say the criticism of American Indian portrayal in Gun, it is stuff that is actually causing offense on a personal level for some. Criticism with regard to a video game goes in reception from what I have seen, sometimes as its own sub-subsection if there is enough of it. The section currently seems to just be about DRM and requiring a constant net connection, which annoys everyone (and is a common complaint about some more recent video games in general) of course, but player griping has no place in an encyclopedia (Wikipedia is trying to look professional). There was stuff like this in the Homefront article, which has since been taken out. [4] [5] I think if it is kept, it should be renamed to DRM, the current title is misleading given common usage. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 11:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Restructure article.

I'm sorry for annoying you for this, but it's true—the Gameplay section goes on top of the Synopsis. If you don't believe me, check these articles:

• Half-Life 2
• Persona 4
• Portal 2

-017Bluefield (talk) 23:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Citations?

I'm sorry, but how exactly is anyone supposed to name sources for the plot of Assassins Creed 2? I don't think that the plot-section about a popular movie has "citation needed" written in every second sentence. Citations are needed about the reception or the production of a game or about certain interpretations of the plot, but certainly not for the plot itself. It just looks bad and, forgive me, quite stupid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.107.174.145 (talk) 19:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree 100%. And so, it seems, do several other people who have posted on Player017's talk page. Concentrate on your English class, Player017! The tags add nothing helpful here and as said previously, just look bad and quite stupid. A single section tag would be more appropriate, but I think that here even that is unnecessary. Clearly the plot comes from the game. Therefore I have removed most of the 'citation needed' tags from the article. If someone wants to reference third party walkthroughs or whatever, please go ahead (though I don't see how they can ever be as definitive as the game itself). One ref at the end of the paragraph/section should be more than adequate. 85.210.175.230 (talk) 21:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)