Talk:Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered/Archive 1

Archive 1

New content

Ferret, I see you've asked that the Gameplay section of Modern Warfare Remastered is expanded to talk to about any new mechanics that were not in the original. Can I ask what you had in mind for this? Off the top of my head, the only differences I can think of is that there are a few new first-person animations for predetermined actions (if you can count that as a gameplay). I just really wasn't sure if it warranted a new section.

Also, it might be a good idea to include a screenshot of the game in order to highlight the graphics of the remaster. A shot of Captain Price sitting in the helicopter from Crew Expandable I thought would be a great example, the other reason being it can be compared with the image that has this same shot in the Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare article. -- Wikibenboy94 (talk) 17:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@Wikibenboy94: Would be a good idea to discuss at Talk:Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered now. But when I tagged it for expansion, that doesn't mean you need to write paragraphs. I'm just not personally aware of the differences beyond knowing there are a few minor ones. For example, the animation tweaks you've mentioned, as well as a few new multiplayer game modes. The section links back here to cover the basics, so only need to cover the few differences or additions. Agree about the screenshot, would you be able to take one? -- ferret (talk) 17:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I would reply on that article but I can't find the option to start a new topic; sadly I'm only a beginner. Similarly, I've never uploaded an image to an article before, not so much due to the coding required, but because of the copyright issues that come with such editing, and I'd rather be given the basic do's and don't's from a qualified editor rather than having to make sense of a long instruction article. Re. the gameplay differences, I can include the animations but wasn't sure that the new modes should be included as gameplay is no different to any of the other modes. Again, apologies for my amateurism! -- Wikibenboy94 (talk) 17:52, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Just add what you can with sources :) I'm watching it so will catch any big issues. I'm no pro at uploading images either, but if you have one you can upload elsewhere (say imgur) and want to email me the URL, I can get it in place. As for starting new talk topics, at the top of the talk page you should have a "New section" button. -- ferret (talk) 18:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

But can any image you find online be used? Cause that's what concerned me about copyright. I know you have to get all images for an article from somewhere, but still. Failing that, I'm looking into making a screenshot of the game using my PS4 -- Wikibenboy94 (talk) 19:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

PS4 screenshot would be great. -- ferret (talk) 20:21, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading a screenshot Ferret. For reference, how did you create it? I myself hadn't planned on comparing images with the original in the same article (apart from Halo Anniversary, I haven't seen a remaster article do this), but I suppose the remaster has considerable changes that might warrant this. Also, captions: because I would have had one image, I was going to say what was happening, so something like "Captain Price and an SAS soldier overlook the cargo ship" (again, I found on the images for remaster articles they describe what's happening, whereas the image for the original game article is the one describing the graphics quality). I suppose it's alright to use the same image/caption used in the original Modern Warfare article? I might also change the wording from "A similar scene" to "The same scene". -- Wikibenboy94 (talk) 09:24, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

That's your screenshot ;) You uploaded it. I just noticed it was sitting there, put a summary/license tag on it, then added it to the article, with the original version from the main article for comparison. Wording can be tweaked but since the screenshot you had uploaded was roughly the same scene, I thought it would be good to put them side by side. -- ferret (talk) 14:14, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Lol I did wonder because it looked very similar. But the problem with that is I uploaded it by mistake, and because it was copyrighted and hadn't gone through the correct upload procedures I received a notification advising it would be taken down after 10 days, and so I also requested it be taken down as soon as with a specific code in the image file description. I didn't mean for it to still be on there... -- Wikibenboy94 (talk) 14:32, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

It's what we refer to as NFCC (Non-free content criteria). I put the necessary license information on there for you. -- ferret (talk) 14:34, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I was about to use two web pages to cite a paragraph, however the titles in both use profanity. Can I still use the titles or is it best to avoid these and possibly re-word them? -- Wikibenboy94 (talk) 21:26, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't censor language. Long as they are reliable sources, doesn't matter if they swear. -- ferret (talk) 21:45, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

The reason I had reverted back to using duplications of the citation details for "Gameplay" and "Development and Changes" was because using the ref name for one as "NGN Changes made" resulted in the error: "Cite warning: <ref> tag with name WC_Changes_made cannot be previewed because it is defined outside the current section or not defined at all." Is this of concern or can it be ignored? -- Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:03, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

It can be ignored. The preview is simply telling you that because you are editing an individual section, and the reference is defined elsewhere, it cannot do a preview of that reference. -- ferret (talk) 13:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

GA Prep

@Wikibenboy94: I think you're getting close to aiming for your first GA. Just a bit more clean up, but I think you can easily get this article there. Give WP:VG/A a read, it covers the assessment process, and lists out the basic criteria for each quality class. In addition, if you haven't already, read the WikiProject Video Game guidelines at WP:VG/GL. GA isn't a (shouldn't be) big deal, just a milestone, and I think you can get there. The weakest area right now is that the Gameplay section has no inline references, but I'm sure the article contains them, you just need to add the tags. -- ferret (talk) 14:34, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@Wikibenboy94: I think you're ready for this. There will be a few things pointed out and a little work to pass, but you've got a good shot, and the reviewers will point you to what needs improvement. Let me know if you need any help on how to start the process. -- ferret (talk) 14:42, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I've read through the two pages you linked and made further edits to the article, but really can't think of anything further that needs to be changed. I'd appreciate if you or the reviewers gave me a boost in highlighting anything you notice that can be improved. -- Wikibenboy94 (talk) 17:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Wikibenboy94: When you're ready, read WP:GAN/I, and follow step #2. All you have to do is paste a template at the top of the page. -- ferret (talk) 19:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Controversies

I know I added a Controversies section in the first place but I'm reconsidering this and wondering if the paragraphs about the bundling, microtransactions, DLC and standalone should be subsections under the Reception section, along with the bit about the Windows technical issues. However if you think a Controversies section is warranted I'll leave it unchanged. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 21:51, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I'd just remove the controversies header and let it fall under reception, which is what it is. -- ferret (talk) 22:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Structuring of lead

@ferret TaerkastUA recently split the lead into three paragraphs as he felt the second paragraph was too long, though not before I put both the praise and criticism back together as they really should be. As a result, the middle paragraph is just over two lines which describes the changes from the original, and I don't think, being the shortest, it looks too appealing. There's not really any other way three paragraphs would work, so any thoughts on just going back to two as it was originally? -- Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:43, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Copyright violation of Modern Warfare screenshot

@ferret JJMC89 removed the screenshot used for Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare from the page, commenting "WP:NFCC violation(s). No valid WP:NFUR for this page. See WP:NFC#Implementation." I have reverted the change in the meantime, but is what they're saying correct? I thought everything was sorted when we first put in the comparison images.

Update: They have reverted back the change, and I can see they are a bot operator and have either updated or removed violating content across a massive range of pages in recent days, so obviously something needs changed here. As you know the image and file name is the very same one used from Modern Warfare's article, but I noticed that hasn't been removed. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 10:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@JJMC89: Can you advise? I don't think the first ping reached you. -- ferret (talk) 12:16, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Ferret; I didn't get the first one. @Wikibenboy94: File:Cod4 game engine.png does not have a rationale for this article, only Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, as required by WP:NFCC#10c. You cannot use the image in this article without one. — JJMC89 (T·C) 14:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Is this still being looked into? Wikibenboy94 (talk) 13:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

You will need to add a additional rationale to the image itself to use it here. -- ferret (talk) 15:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I really don't know much about this and have had to read up a bit on these procedures, but from what I gather it's mainly the "Purpose of use" of the image that needs changing? As it is, I have noticed both images in the article use the same PoU as the original image. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 08:19, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't do image work much myself, but I believe that's basically correct. You just need to declare what the purpose of use in this article is. -- ferret (talk) 11:36, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Well I'll give it a shot and come back later. I'll soon know if anything more needs to be done. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Edit: I've got immediate problems here: basically I'm not sure how to update details in the image summary if the image is being used for more than one article. The article is listed as "Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare" so I was going to put "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered" next to that but it doesn't look like it'll work. Similarly, if I change the Purpose of use by explaining its inclusion in Remastered's article, it'll look odd seeing as that's the only indication it's used in two articles. I need further advice from someone on what parts need to be amended.

Edit the summary section. Duplicate the existing rationale, and update the article name and purpose for this article. -- ferret (talk) 13:18, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

But like I said, changing the name and purpose for the image means it will be like that for any other article it's included in, e.g. the purpose "Used to compare the graphical specifications of the game between that of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered" will appear in the image summary used in the COD 4 article, where it's the only image on there. Same with the article name, and I can't put more than one article name in the summary. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:28, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

See what I did here. @JJMC89: Is this correct? The rationale template does not support linking multiple articles so I took a guess to literally just insert a second rationale for the second article.... -- ferret (talk) 12:42, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Looks good to me. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:43, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Dead link

I've found that the URL https://pvplive.net/c/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-remastered-update-3-new-weapons used in the article is dead. This is because the PVP Live website shut down in February this year. I'm also unable to find any screenshots of the page using an internet archive site, nor is there any other webpage that displays the same article.

Please advise the best way to get around this as I've never resolved the issue of a dead link before. Is it simply a case of clicking "Fix dead links" in the "View history" page and going through the necessary steps using a bot? Wikibenboy94 (talk) 08:51, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Getting a GA to FA

@Ferret: We're probably a long way off from achieving this if it happened, and I don't know exactly the amount of requirements it will need to meet, but I was wondering if and how it would be possible to get this article to Featured Article status, having met Good Article? You've probably noticed I've spent a long time, I'll admit to perhaps an obsessive degree, tweaking this article to get it as good as possible (although this was purely because I thought these edits needed to be made, not because I always considering FA) and in my opinion the vast majority have all helped.

I've briefly looked at WP:GVF, and I think perhaps the biggest drawback is that FA's are required to be "well-illustrated by media". Being a remaster from two years ago, and barely talked about anymore by writers, this might be a problem. Having said that, I have noticed that Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary, an article on a video game remaster from 2011, is also FA, so it might be possible for Modern Warfare Remastered too.

What are your thoughts? Wikibenboy94 (talk) 13:49, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

You may want to ask WT:VG for opinions on this topic. I myself have not involved myself in the FA process before. -- ferret (talk) 14:21, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare Remasterd listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare Remasterd. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Of course Raven would say yes, they are owned by Activision

They ARE Activision.... to say no is to shut them down — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:1304:E177:54D7:E71E:B4AC:FDA4 (talk) 00:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Use of quotations

I've recently become more aware that as per WP:VG/REC and WP:RECEPTION, direct quotations should be kept to a minimum and wherever possible author's statements should be paraphrased. I would argue that the vast majority of gaming articles I've read, including FA's, do use numerous quotations, as if this is standard procedure, however I presume this would be a case of WP:WHATABOUTX. Would it be beneficial to paraphrase the quotations, particularly in the Reception section, on this page, or are the examples used perfectly suitable for illustrating these critic's specific opinions? Wikibenboy94 (talk) 14:41, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't really be worried about this, the article is a GA and probably in fine shape as is. -- ferret (talk) 12:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of Jim Sterling's quote

@Ferret: The block quote used for Jim Sterling's opinion on the introduction of the game's microtransactions has been removed by Soetermans, but it has been included without objection since 2017. Do you agree with this edit? I thought it gave a good insight into Sterling's main issues with their incorporation, but if it was better to delete the quote I can always extend the initial sentence about it that now remains. -- Wikibenboy94 (talk) 10:19, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Soetermans is an experienced editor and it would be good for you to chat with him on his reasonings. Note that Soetermans took 2019 off from editing as a kind of new years' thing so just got back to editing and wouldn't have reviewed this article over the past year. -- ferret (talk) 13:01, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Wikibenboy94 and Ferret:,

It's been a while, but I'm happy to be back! About the quote: first, it's just too long. It's 1.300 and something characters long. While Sterling is considered a "situational source" per WP:VG/RS, without the quote, there are already plenty of sources (Destructoid, Beyond Entertainment, PCGamesN, Hardcore Gamer, Kotaku) that are also critical of the inclusion of microtransactions. So it's not necessarily needed here: if Sterling would somehow pick the other side in this discussion, that would maybe merit an inclusion. Sterling is known for his harsh and critical stance, but he also writes in exaggerated, hyperbolic statements ("The rampant, unchecked greed on display is almost impressive in its audacity. To sneak freemium bullshit into a nine-year-old game that leveraged its own fandom to sell a completely different game is a masterstroke of sliminess, a monument to Bobby Kotick's notorious lack of shame"). But we're talking about microtransactions, optional items for a video game. It's not the end of the world. He's also predicting the future ("COD4 is paving the way for publishers to triple down – not just make money by selling an old game with updated visuals, but by tacking on DLC and microtransactions too. Should this pay off, I’ve little doubt that other publishers will attempt it themselves."). That's unnecessary too, as it's about microtransactions in this game, not what publishers might do in subsequent rereleases. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 13:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

like spyro and crash remakes, this is also a remake, not a remaster

a remaster is when the graphics are retouched to make a game look prettier (ie, basically porting the pc version, where available). a remake completely builds the game from the ground up, and thats what they did to this game AND mw2 remake. it seems activision and its subsidiaries cannot tell the difference between remake and remaster anymore. it seems the remake of crash nitro kart also suffered the same thing. other users have corrected the issue in spyro and nitro trilogies pages. so this page, along with mw2 and kart should be fixed as well, since they were all worked up from the ground up and not just retouched. KRISHANKO (talk) 07:13, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia reports what sources state, and this is generally referred to as a remaster. Even if that's not a technical truth, it'll be nearly impossible to to change because the game's literal name is "Remastered" -- ferret (talk) 12:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

thats only because its a more marketeable term, even if the product is not what its claimed to be. like selling vanilla flavored chocolate. KRISHANKO (talk) 21:24, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

That doesn't mean anything to the fact that it's literally named that and so we have to call it "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered" -- ferret (talk) 22:49, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

read it and weep: https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2016-vs-modern-warfare-remastered

"Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered is different, with developers Raven Software completely reworking the game's visuals for the current generation of console hardware."

"In that sense simply calling this latest version of Modern Warfare a remaster would be doing the game a disservice, when what we have here is a fully-fledged remake of a title that defined the last generation of first-person shooters."

this (and mw2 remake) is a remake. period. KRISHANKO (talk) 03:32, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Just to note, the article for DuckTales: Remastered, despite the game's title, lists the game as a remake (and has done since the article's creation in 2013), and the only source in the article that labels it as such is an opinion piece from GameZone. This will need to be changed if we should only be referring to the title and not what some sources may say. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:21, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Additional review

@Ferret: I'm not sure how this publication was overlooked during the discussion for the article's GA review but USgamer is definitely a reliable source and popular site that published a review of Remastered at the time of release. I've done another quick browse of reviews and this is really the only website I can find that's suitable for inclusion. If there's no qualms I will go ahead and incorporate this in. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 19:45, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Don't need me to approve it. GA doesn't mean an article is 100% and can't be improved or expanded. -- ferret (talk) 19:48, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Undue weight?

As the summary of the game's reception goes into some depth compared to the rest of the content in the lead, is this undue weight and should be shortened, or is it fine to keep as it is? Wikibenboy94 (talk) 17:50, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

It's fine. -- ferret (talk) 00:02, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Featured article criteria

@Ferret: As this article has been a good article for almost 4 years and has continued to be improved, do you think it is of a good-enough quality to be reviewed for a featured article review? What sort of basic criteria needs to be met that you think this article might not reach at present? Wikibenboy94 (talk) 13:46, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't really get involved in FA, you may want to get advice at WT:VG. -- ferret (talk) 14:08, 4 January 2021 (UTC)