Talk:Prince of Persia (2008 video game)

Name revealed

The name of the game is apparently Prince of Persia: The Fallen King. Source:http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/53334 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.0.182 (talk) 22:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

That's the DS name adaption. Will add information. dude527 (talk) 22:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I have better source, http://prince-of-persia.uk.ubi.com/index.php?page=news & it states that perfectly... However, I have made this page roughly, can you please help me to clean-up ? – Deb ‖ Poke • EditList ‖ 23:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, just did a little bit, thanks for making it. I'll come back in a bit and see what else can be done. dude527 (talk) 23:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I added a cleanup tag

And by cleanup, I mean "massive" cleanup. This article is basically an advertisement right now. Frvernchanezzz (talk) 10:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I suggest deleting this page

The name "PRODIGY" is just a rumour. It has not been officially confirmed. Though many would argue that this rumour has a strong possibility to be true, its a rumour nonetheless and thus outside the scope of an encyclopedia. I think that a developed section in POP article is enough for now and a new article on this matter should only be written when more information is officially disclosed.necromancer (talk) 09:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The game has been official announced by Ubisoft. What ubisoft has not announced is the name. So far a new prince of persia is coming. Until a new name comes this page will remain when the new name is announced this page will be moved to the new name. --SkyWalker (talk) 09:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Name of this game

According to Game Informer, this game's working title is Prince of Persia: Heir Apparent, not Prodigy. I'm going to move this page to that title if no one objects. Frvernchanezzz (talk) 05:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

No, that isn't the name of the game, it's the name of the Game Informer article. Multiple things support this: the subtitle is not directly below the "Prince of Persia" logo, and I'm pretty sure it would be if it was the subtitle, but that's just speculation. The real thing is that it doesn't say *anywhere* in the article that this is what the game is called, in fact it says multiple times "The new Prince of Persia", not a title, etc. Had it been named "Heir Apparent", they would have referred to it as such in the article. Thirdly, Ubisoft still hasn't made an official announcement confirming this as the name, they still refer to it as their "New Prince of Persia game", and the official teaser website doesn't say "Heir Apparent". So, no, I do not agree that this game will be called Heir Apparent, I just think Game Informer was say "The new saga of Prince of Persia is now apparent", so they named the article that. Anyways, that is clearly the article's name, not the game's. Go look at the magazine again please. Dude527 (talk) 00:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Look here: http://www.gameinformer.com/NR/exeres/73EE8233-708E-4B9F-9FCF-C1DB66ED6BFC.htm ... It says nothing about the game's title. This is not the game's title. Dude527 (talk) 00:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

My mistake. Sorry dude. Frvernchanezzz (talk) 06:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't move anything until Ubisoft gives official confirmation about the game name.--SkyWalker (talk) 12:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Until the game's title has been confirmed, I've moved the article to Prince of Persia (2008 video game), and it should stay that way until further notice.--EclipseSSD (talk) 12:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree. The latest Ubidays opening conference and the first trailer had the game simply titled as "Prince of Persia", so please, be reasonable - let's wait for the official name from Ubisoft. wlodi (talk) 21:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It says here(http://www.psu.com/Ubisoft-shoots-down-Prince-of-Persia-rumours-News--a0003700-p0.php) that they have not decided on any name yet. It also says there is a release date between October and December, but I think we should wait for other confirmation about the release date. 216.114.214.12 (talk) 21:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Moved the page to "Prince of Persia (2008)". Thank you for the reference. Dude527 (talk) 15:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Dude ??? Agreed to what ? Both the two recent posts before you says we should wait & should not move the article, At Least NOW. Nothing is confirmed & we know that. But the maximum probability is being "Prodigy" & that's what maximum people will search with. Do Anything such things AFTER DISCUSSING WELL in talk page not only posting a message. For the last 3 days, I have made this articla a START-CLASS from an Stub So, You should at least maintain the rules to deals with a Start-Class Page. Dont make pages move frequently.

If the name comes other than "Prodigy" & declares to be "XYZ" then we can then directly redirect it there. But If you make it move to 2008, then you will have to move it again. (I kno... its not a STRESSFUL task... but still... is it worthy that much ? Except of lengthening Contribution list ?) – Deb ‖ Poke • EditList ‖ 17:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Deblopper, as you know, Wikipedia is factual-based, meaning we can only contribute information that we know to be true, much like a real encyclopedia. Well, right now, all we know is that Ubisoft confirmed that they have not chosen a name yet. That's our only facts, and we must abide by them, therefore, naming this article "Prince of Persia: Prodigy", is breaking one of the 5 pillars. And, Deblopper... Don't take credit for making this article start-class. Many people contributed, you're just one of the many, not the only one. Dude527 (talk) 17:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not taking credit, I just told you that, its an Start Class article & you have to take it like that... And moreover... Read the Second Stanza You will get it all. And then I hope you will find the rest of your questions answer over internet by searching them, rather form others, like me. And i hope too, thtat you will move it roll-back as Prince of Persia: Prodigy yourself, & if not, then I am again moving it after 6 hours. – Deb ‖ Poke • EditList ‖ 18:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

You said "I made this article Start-class", etc, etc. And that link you sent me clearly states that Ubisoft has not officially named it yet. Shall I pull a quote? "First, what do we call it? Though the Ubidays press materials listed the title's name as Prince of Persia Prodigy, the very same name recently trademarked by the IP-owner Jordan Mechner, Mattes wouldn't confirm that that was the final title: "I don't think we've announced the final title." That means that they haven't announced it, which means it can't be the name of this article UNTIL they announce it. Dude527 (talk) 22:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. That simply states that, the best believable name of the game is "Prince of Persia: Prodigy". As per Wikipedia, its an Open source information mine, which itself says that "You should not believe totally on Wikipedia", It contains things that's MOSTLY BELIEVED TO BE TRUE, & now that is it. Its not a "Bible" or "Kur-an" and have no intension to be. It welcomes editors to edit, and in all the cases it needs any COP, it asks for a Task Force team and makes one, so please don't be adamant, consider other peoples opinion too.

As this name used in press and site registration, its the MOST apropriate as the Article name. Prince of Persia (2008) is true obviously even after the final Label is released, so it will always have a redirection to point to the Labeled article. So, Until they announce it, we will have to consider it as POP PRODIGY.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disclaimers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_war#What_is_wrong_with_edit_warring.3F

Those were for your information. Consider placing this article to its rightful place i.e. Prince of Persia: Prodigy. In either case I am moving it in 12 hrs, this time is for your consideration & updation. I thought You "might be" offline the past 6 hrs. depending on which part of the world you are living, So I guess you will be online atleast within this 18 hrs time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deblopper (talk • contribs) 03:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The disclaimer is no reason to put information that could possibly be wrong up. The game is confirmed to be released in 2008, but it's not confirmed to be sub-titled "Prodigy". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which is fact-based, we do not add speculation on it. Guessing the most likely name, no matter how likely it is, without it being confirmed with a reference, is considered speculation. All the sources you have posted thus far are original research. We strive to go based on facts, and you telling me to consider other people's opinions isn't valid for an encyclopedia, as they are based on fact, not opinion. This game clearly is not confirmed to be subtitled "Prodigy" and when confronted with the question, Ubisoft stated that they weren't sure if that is what it was titled. I'm not doing this out of personal bias, nor wanting to "keep the page my own" per se, I'm doing this to keep this article as factual as possible, as no speculation should be found on Wikipedia. The disclaimer does not mean we post information that could possibly be wrong, it gives us no margin for that. Dude527 (talk) 03:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

From your given link, I have found this as the 1st point :-

Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place.
If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented.
Examples of appropriate topics include the 2010 U.S. Senate elections and 2016 Summer Olympics.
By comparison, the 2020 U.S. presidential election and 2040 Summer Olympics are not considered appropriate article topics
because nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research. Avoid predicted sports team line-ups,
which are inherently unverifiable and speculative. A schedule of future events may be appropriate if it can be verified.

I was just wondering about the 1st 2 lines, aren't you? When we have all the "Well documented Speculation" about the name, why should we hick-up to keep the page name to "Prodigy"? Eventually, you MUST consider the OPINION OF OTHER EDITORS JUST BEFORE YOU. That is what a talk page is for, DISCUSSION, & considering other people's opinion, That's what the Creator of this section did. He was too considering to move this page but took the opinion of other peoples opinion Democratically. Same applies for you. I am not posting no link or reference for you this time, just telling you Wikipedia would have no problem if we name it to prodigy, if you are not agree, you have to find it out how. Your 18 Hrs. still isn't over, I believe you will update yourself within this time & move back the page yourself. – Deb ‖ Poke • EditList ‖ 10:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Please, do not change the article name. "Prince of Persia (2008)" is the best way as we don't have the final name of this game announced yet. That's why I think we shouldn't name the article as Prodigy, I think it's simple. wlodi (talk) 16:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

That quote applies to events, not game names. And this event isn't "almost certain", because they denied the name when asked. You don't seem to understand that an encyclopedia is based on facts, not opinions, therefore, only facts belong on it, verifiable, true facts. Right now you're just speculating on the name of the game, we don't place things based on where they're most likely to go in the future, shall I quote this for you? "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred." Meaning no speculation allowed. Wikipedia is no crystal ball, and we don't anticipate future events. Even if you have good reasons, and some original research, which, by the way, is all that you have right now. You're taking the fact that they have the domain, and Ubidays labeled it as so, and even though they denied the name, we still must put it because fans are speculating it? No, if you move this page back, you will be treated as a vandal for breaking the rules of the crystal ball, and adding original research to the article. We must keep encyclopedias factual. Dude527 (talk) 16:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The matter isn't abaou Vandalism, Vandalism have strict rules for that & I am certainly not falling in this, more over its not I, I was telling you behalf of the other editors. Now you count the votes, its 3-2. What I was saying that, Think its kinda named as XYZ, and we already have made a page for this, The world nearly believed the name, though its not confirmed. Later on let the name published to be ABC, then we can make the MOVE directly from XYZ to ABC. But what is happening here is, You are moving it from XYZ to ALPHABET then myt be to ABC or XYZ again, whichever comes out. Now, Am I clear? And, thnks that you cares about the 3RR. – Deb ‖ Poke • EditList ‖ 17:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you not understand the crystal ball rule, Deblopper? And the discussion isn't about votes, it's about debate. And so far, according to the rules, we are the correct ones, because what you are adding is speculation, what we are adding is fact. Besides, it's 3-3, if you count that guy at the bottom, if we're considering votes. Dude527 (talk) 17:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am not moving this article now, for two reasons : i) Moving this again to Prodigy, then again to the published name goes against my own words, ii) The vote IS 3-3, so we should leave it as-is. – Deb ‖ Poke • EditList ‖ 18:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, GamePro is calling this game Price of Persia: Prodigy. [1] I'm not going to !vote in this poll, but, yeah. J.delanoy^gabsanalyze 04:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, but, Not only GamePro... I reckon... – Deb ‖ Poke • EditList ‖ 21:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, in an interview with play.tm Ubisoft's Chris Easton states the title of the game is "Just Prince of Persia! Not Heir Apparent, or Prodigy, or whatever else you might have read online. Just Prince of Persia!" In the same interview it's also stated that there are no plans for it to come to the Wii yet. Here's the interview: http://play.tm/story/18599 Th 2005 (talk) 15:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I think he was getting at the notion that they haven't confirmed a name. Either that or he was stating that they have created a new game, so they don't want to subtitle it. Well, either way, the name Prodigy is clearly dispelled due to that link. dude527 (talk) 17:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Update - We have official word from Chris Easton here. This game will not have a subtitle, it will simply be Prince of Persia. Discussion closed. Also, will take any new information from the interview and post it here when I get the chance. dude527 (talk) 01:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Update Data Removing

All editors are hereby notified to update themselves; before Pen-Thru the ready made topic, by removing update information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deblopper (talk • contribs) 02:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

What does that even mean? Dude527 (talk) 03:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Bro, Everyone has the right to edit this page as per they have the updates, maintaining the manual of style. Please will you stop thinking this page as your own?

Leave all the, update conflicts; you have reported for a biasing & punctuation error, I must tell you This topic has no option to be biased & for punctuation, you don't have to REMOVE edits. And as of my notifications, you are making "There was a video" where it was "There's a video"... Dude, the video still exists. I provided the link to it, LOTS OF TIMES, that you removed LOT times too.

I don't know if it gives you any kind of satisfaction or not, but the way you are doing these its really not good. Please give others an option too to edit this page, you are not quite the only "POP : Prodigy" fan world wide. Please try to understand.

– Deb ‖ Poke • EditList ‖ 19:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should understand that I edit where I see fit to Wikipedia's guidelines. I delete information that has no references, and I add references if I can find them, I also fix punctuation, I delete biased, or unnecessary information (Such as the lengths of the videos, that only took up space), and, if somebody contributes something in a manner inconsistent with Wikipedia's rules, I fix their edit, or I delete it if I can't fix it. I don't treat it like my own article as you say I do. I just make sure it follows the rules.

Also, don't provide links in the article itself, they don't belong there, they belong in the External Links section. References is what belongs in the article itself. And if you're wondering why I have deleted the website's portal link, it's because it leads to the EXACT same place as the official website link, so we don't need both.

As for the "there is" thing, I'm making it use correct grammar. "There is another video released May 22, 2008" doesn't make any sense. Dude527 (talk) 19:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

>>>

Hello, Thanks for understanding. But dude, when it happens, probably you can have a high speed Internet, so that I, but MOST of the people (mostly in middle-east) can't afford that & so they cant download all the videos. That's why we should provide a bit little more about it, as of its in a development stage.

Moreover, I precisely know that both the links redirects to the EXACT same page, its true. But, these are different domains registered by Ubisoft for different purpose & name-alias. You said, you edit the infos you find to be biased, you should discuss about it in talk page BEFORE you remove it. About the case of External Links, They are NOT references. So, as of Wikipedia's Manual of Style you CAN post it, to make it more accessible. Because people won't always KNOW or EXPECT that there will be any link about any of the word in-between, much lower of the Article (And eventually, every Wiki visitor isn't ADVANCED user, to know the detail).

If you find any information untrust worhty, please have a ride on your search engines, I suppose they work fine these days as per user requirement. And when this problem comes with my edits, I must tell you, I provide links for almost all information. So, Please Dont remove everything you dont know. I must tell you, the edit regarding to the "Release date : Holidays" might seem to be a little thing, but its quite good, try do somthing to improve, like that.

P.S : I think you have American accent of speaking, that's why you think this doesn't make sense, It Does. I'm not having any personal rivalory neither no Ego. Thanks. – Deb ‖ Poke • EditList ‖ 20:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I still do not think so much of the details added are necessary. I think we should just give a quick summary. Oh and by the way, comments like "The outcome was very similar to the original leaked concept art", is considered biased, as per Wikipedia's rules, that type of information has no place here, that's the type I seek to get rid of. Thank you for understanding too. By they way, where are you from then? Dude527 (talk) 20:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I just abandoned my previous ID because of my Identity exploit. So, sorry, I cant tell you (at least now) where am I from. I think you would understand. & yeah, Your edit regarding to GENRE of the game ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platforming redirects to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalytic_reforming ) You should have correct it. It Probably don't have any resemblance with game. Does it?

– Deb ‖ Poke • EditList ‖ 20:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah crap, you're right... That has nothing to do with gaming... Think you could fix it for me? Dude527 (talk) 20:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Never mind I fixed it

There were still some more internal wiki link conflicts, I managed that for you.

– Deb ‖ Poke • EditList ‖ 21:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

3 Sections

Any possible way we could fuse the Technology, Elika, and Development section into one? Considering technology is part of the development, and so is Elika, I think it would be proper. Dude527 (talk) 23:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, if you'd like to think this way about the whole page, you could basically merge everything into "development" as the game is still being developed and we don't know anything for sure. I think it's a better idea to create sections that describe different areas of development. wlodi (talk) 00:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, a separate section for Elika sounds good. Dude527 (talk) 01:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, sorry I couldn't make a drawn out reply before, I was a little pressed for time. I was going to say, the technology used definitely applies to development, but I think a separate section for Elika sounds good, mainly because of the emphasis Ubisoft is placing on her uniqueness and the way she'll revolutionize the game. I was just stating that the Elika section did not belong in the "Plot" section. Dude527 (talk) 01:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you should put a brief there too, but care about repetition. – Deb ‖ Poke • EditList ‖ 21:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

I propose moving this article back to Prince of Persia (2008 video game), because although the domain name is registered, that still does not make it official. It could simply mean that they are protecting their assets and trademarks to the franchise. The website also redirects to a site with a title of Prince of Persia (no Prodigy). For example, Blizzard Entertainment recently acquired the domain Diablo3.com from a fansite, but that does not mean that there will be a Diablo 3, despite speculation. Therefore, I suggest moving the page back to PoP (2008), until an official announcement from Ubisoft, because it currently violates WP:CRYSTAL, and it just pure speculation.--EclipseSSD (talk) 11:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Please watch-out for the previous talks. They explains clearly. #1 & #2 for your consideration. And I am removing the remove tag from the Talk page & The Request page too. – Deb ‖ Poke • EditList ‖ 21:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Ubisoft tag for images copyright

Please, do use "Ubisoft-screenshot" tag to set the licensing for images you upload for this article. This is how this tag looks: Ubisoft-screenshot It is the right licensing for screenshots from Ubisoft games. 89.78.180.141 (talk) 14:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Name of Donkey?

The article states that his donkey is called "Lady with Treasure". I think someone has misunderstood the words "laden with treasure" from the Ubisoft interview. This is what I believe Ben Mattes actually says: "He is just coming back from his previous adventure, with his donkey laden with treasure that he's kind of scored on his previous quest...". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.13.212 (talk) 13:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not too sure about it. Could not find no written document about it. I think we should let the Editors have a watch on this video again & then think & post here. You CAN change the name if you want & have good faith to do so. Other Editors, Please post here and wait for others for positive reply before changing or altering or deleting it. – Deb ‖ Poke • EditList ‖ 16:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no written document, but I changed it because, well listen to the interview with Mattes. He says "[...] on a donkey, laden with treasure [...]", not "[...]on his donkey, Lady with Treasure [...]". Don't get mad at me for changing it, I did to contribute to the article, because the citation that we have there says what the donkey is, and the day we post a citation saying one thing, then have the article say another thing, is the day of Wikipedia's downfall. If someone CAN find a written citation, all the better, but for now, all we have is the spoken interview. Dude527 (talk) 03:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha ha, I am mad dude, can't change myself for you [:P]. Well, as of this, its fine... you did it right and I myself found it so later. I was just expecting other viewpoints. Thanks for contributing. – Deb ‖ Poke • EditList ‖ 02:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Citation Needed

"The inspiration to create Elika was drawn from supporting characters from other media, like Elizabeth Swann from the Pirates of the Caribbean film series; Padmé Amidala from Star Wars; and Arwen from The Lord of the Rings trilogy."

Do anyone know the reference for this quote (used under describing the character "Elika") to be true and stated somewhere by Ubisoft? – Deb ‖ Poke • EditList ‖ 20:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

There was a citation posted, did someone take it down? I will try and find it. Dude527 (talk) 01:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I found the problem. The site administration removed the article. This citation is no longer valid, I will remove it, and hopefully we find another. Dude527 (talk) 01:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, now I got it... he he. – Deb ‖ Poke • EditList ‖ 21:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Release date styling.

Would people please stop changing the release date in the infobox to Q3, fiscal year, 2008. Most other future video game (Operation Flashpoint 2: Dragon Rising, Red Faction: Guerrilla, Tomb Raider: Underworld) release dates are styled as Q4 2008, Q3 2008, etc... or as Late 2008, Fall 2008 or even just as TBA 2008, so there's no reason to change it. It's easier, and more consistant. --EclipseSSD (talk) 12:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

No, Ubisoft said Q3 or Q4 of their fiscal year. This is important because their fiscal year goes all the way into March of '09, so it's not necessarily meaning this year. That's why it's significant, also Ubisoft has only announced it to come in their fiscal year. dude527 (talk) 19:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. But what about this link here [2]. It states a holiday 2008 release date. Should we include that?--EclipseSSD (talk) 19:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I've found several other links, including IGN[3] and Computer Shopper [4] amongst others. --EclipseSSD (talk) 19:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we should just post Q3 fiscal year, as it covers all the months we're talking about. dude527 (talk) 20:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The Ubisoft press release says "Holiday 2008", which is (normal) Q4, so I'll change the date to that. Fin©™ 16:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Trailer

Some discussion of the trailer is warranted in the article itself. Also, it'd be great if someone knew the music that they play in the Ubidays trailer. I know that X-Ray Dog's Army of Doom and Gothic Power were used in the Sands of Time ad campaign, so I'm assuming they used XRD again this time? Fire (talk) 02:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

3D cel-shaded vs. 2D sidescroller

Well, someone made a few good faith edits for this today, so I figure I'll fill all of you in so it doesn't happen again. The edits were about the cel-shaded style not being new to the Prince of Persia series, that they were used in the original series. Well, that's not true, because, as to my understanding, those are 2D side-scrollers where, if the Prince's skin is red, all his skin is red. There is no shading in 2D. Also, only 3D games can make use of cel-shading, so, really, the art style used, isn't reminiscent to the original series' art style, and is a new innovation to the series. Just to re-iterate, we're comparing a 3D platformer, to a 2D sidescroller. There's nothing reminiscent about the art styles used. dude527 (talk) 06:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Setting

Now it obiviously set in Persia but apon recently watching Ben Croshaw's reveiw on E3 he said that they are ignoring the historical middle eastern feel and going for a anime look insted, can anyone confirm this? I've only seen a few sceen shots.FSAB (talk) 18:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The plotline is that the Prince gets sucked into a sandstorm, and put in an odd land where nobody is. And, yes, the developers' are going for a cel-shaded look, rather than typical shading. --The Guy _complain ^edits 18:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Unknown Corruption Section video

http://xbox360.ign.com/dor/objects/890664/prince-of-persia-next-gen/videos/PoP_DevDiary01_082608.html

An offical Dev diary by Ubisoft which shows 2 if not 3 unknown version of antagonist of the game's corrupted humans please view this before reverting saying it's unreferenced67.180.225.161 (talk) 08:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Nobody said anything about unverifiable, its just not notable. If we don't even know what these enemies are, we cannot provide a backstory on them. We also do not have any room to say "they resemble," as that constitutes original research. --The Guy _complain ^edits 08:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

You can't provide a story on the new prince only that he's a wanderer with a claw that he got from his journeys. Nor anything about Elika other then she's a race of people who can use magic and get's more magical abilities as your progress and that at first she is distant from the prince she becomes closer to him over the coruse of the game but that hasn't stopped people from taking liberties from thinking prince will keep his blue and red scarf the whole game and that will be his defining mark beside those on his cheeks67.180.225.161 (talk) 08:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

We have references specifically defining the Prince character.(nowhere in the article does it say that he'll keep the blue scarf the entire game) We do not have references specifically defining these corruptions, only a video that they appear in briefly. Also, please sign your posts with ~~~~ --The Guy _complain ^edits 08:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm using that as an example not say it excatly says that in the article, It dosen't draw out his character really just tell you what he's based on more then anything it then goes on a rant about his design and abilities which by the game play section is already defined his abilities and should be visible about his design if you taken interest enough to check out the Wikipedia page and I HAVE BEEN SIGNING MY POST!.67.180.225.161 (talk) 08:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're saying. All I know, is that we have tons of information about Elika, the Prince, and the Hunter. We have video interviews, text interviews, magazine articles, in which these characters are pictured, and their origins, their abilities, et cetera, are described. The creatures that you want to add appeared briefly in one video. They weren't mentioned by the development team as anything new, nothing was described about them, so taking and putting information into the article, would be original research. Also, you've been signing your posts after you post your comment, usually causing an edit conflict. --The Guy _complain ^edits 08:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Your repeating in the article From Plot summary: The adventure begins with a new Prince of Persia, a wanderer, a vagabond, returning home from an adventure on a donkey laden with treasure, which he earned on his previous venture. He desires to spend his treasure on many luxuries, including women and liquor. From Character Section on Prince: He is a wanderer, a vagabond, who wants to adventure with no real ties, always living in the present. To him, the past is gone and he carries no burdens, the future is yet to come and it will take care of itself. He is a man who lives by the day, not considering anything long term; he spends his treasure on women, luxury and liquor, simply because it's who he is.

From Gameplay: She is also very acrobatic, performing the same moves as the Prince, with ease. When solving puzzles, Elika plays a role as well. If the Prince does not know where to go next, Elika will guide him in the right direction. From Character Section on Elika: This includes exploration, combat and puzzle-solving....She is also able to guide the Prince on the right track in case he is lost in his way in the game and can assist him in solving multiple puzzles as well.

I'm citing characters who look to be in the final version of the game they didn't bring them up because the hunter is the rival in a way which has been stated in an interview and seen in videos, the new prince will be fighting the hunter many times in his journey.They might not deserve a full sub section but atleast give them a mention some where in the article67.180.225.161 (talk) 09:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Mention which, once again, fails to comply with WP:OR and WP:V. You're using your own judgment in saying they "look to be in the final version." They really don't deserve or need mention anywhere in the article if they're not significant enough to be mentioned by the dev team. Does Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time give a rundown of every sand creature?

What you don't seem to understand is the failed compliance with WP:OR, which does not allow it to be mentioned in the article. Repeating information is not against the rules, especially in the case where it aids prose, which is certainly the case here. --The Guy _complain ^edits 09:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay let's see this OR rules: 1.Verifible source=my answer http://prince-of-persia.uk.ubi.com/index.php?page=media&action=video the offical site 2.Directly related=It's the development dairy made by Ubisoft themselves about the game I see how it's not in compliance with OR and how it's anything related to V and yes Sands of time's offical website gave a run down of every single sand creature and how it came to be

Exactly, you don't get the failed compliance... I already made that point.

OK look, does it say anywhere even once that those creatures will be in the final game? No. Does it say anywhere that they have anything to do with the final product? No. It's very verifiable that they do indeed appear in the video, but its not verifiable that they're completed characters that will be in the final product of the game, or related to the game in any way, for that matter, and therefore to not merit mention.

Sands of Time's official site might have, but not the article. Also, I urge you to sign your posts to avoid edit conflicts, as one just happened to me. --The Guy _complain ^edits 09:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

What you're also not getting, is that this is Wikipedia. We cannot just take a picture and say "This is what this picture resembles," and then publish that in an article ourselves. That's what you're trying to do, that's against the rules. --The Guy _complain ^edits 09:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

replying to what you you said before this one Dose it say anywhere that they will not even once? dose it say they aren't near final product? especially with the release date being holiday 08 which is 4 months away meaning they're locking everything down by now for going gold. Can you prove me 100% wrong and officially give me word that not every single one of the Corrupted we saw in that video are not in the game? They are related to the game in the way that they are atleast concepts for Ahriman's Corrupted. And if concepts are not worth mentioning then the fact the prince is based on Han solo is not worth merit.I'm not saying it looks like anything I'm just stating that 2 or 3 more corruptions have appeared int videos with weapons and one has an organic look67.180.225.161 (talk) 09:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

You're still not understanding. It doesn't matter if they were mentioned to not be, even once. That would just further my point. I don't need to prove you wrong, any percent. You need to prove yourself right, which you aren't doing. You're using your own judgment in saying that they are concept renders, you don't have a valid citation. The burden of evidence lies on the contributor, and you don't have any. As far as I'm concerned, this discussion is over, you have no evidence supporting you. --The Guy _complain ^edits 09:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, as for proving you wrong: I'm pretty sure there are standards of inclusion on Wikipedia, but there are no standards of dis-inclusion. --The Guy _complain ^edits 09:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

What I said excatly originally is "In the video diary posted on IGN, on August 26th two if not three types of fully grown corruption where shown to be fighting the prince on using a board sword that was done fully rendered, one without any weapon that had a plant like quality to it that was shown without any textures, finally the third if it's not the first another Corruption that uses a sword that looks closer to the similar to a Shamshir this corruption was only shown untextured fighting an untextured prince" ....is any of that untrue?67.180.225.161 (talk) 09:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Which is original research. It's not verifiable that they were fully grown, its not verifiable that they are forms of Corruption, its not verifiable one had plant-like qualities, its not verifiable that one looks close to a Shamshir -- It's all your judgment. It might be true, but according to WP:V, "The threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." In other words, you're using your own judgment to try to define these "forms of Corruption." --The Guy _complain ^edits 09:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The Corruption have been split into three categories 1.liquid 2.Moving traps 3.Humanoid Enemies all of them humanoid enemies. The one with the board sword is verifiable as corruption from the life bar and attacks and appearance which bare an almost 100% similar look to that of the Hunter's Fight shown at E3 and GC. the weapon looks close to a Shamshir but is not verifiable as a Shamshir so I didn't say it was a Shamshir.67.180.225.161 (talk) 09:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

You're using your own judgment in saying they're all humanoid corruption, that's not verifiable. You're using your own judgment in saying that the life bar makes it verifiable as corruption, that's not verifiable. You're using your own judgment in saying its almost identical to the Hunter fight, that's not verifiable. You're using your own judgment in saying it looks like a Shamshir, that's not verifiable. Are you seeing a pattern here? Please just let it go. --The Guy _complain ^edits 09:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

....one last shot at this and I'll let it go.....At the bottom of the screen when The prince is fighting the MAN(not going to call it corruption) with a boardsword it says "IN GAME FOOTAGE-WORK IN PROGRESS" at the bottom he's in the game he's a fight you have to do, is he a corruption most likely but since you don't wish to acknowledge him as so, do atleast acknowledge him as a fight within the actual game?67.180.225.161 (talk) 09:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not verifiable. Look, just to clear things up, I do believe these to be Corruption, I do believe them to be in the final product. I am against adding them to the article, however, because it goes against the rules. But, no, we cannot list that as a fight, because nobody said it was. Usually a "WORK IN PROGRESS" tag means that it is not the final product. --The Guy _complain ^edits 10:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay whatever I'm done with this section it's verifiable on so many levels your just being hardheaded It even show's a concept art of the fellow with the board sword as it talks about the enemies near the end of the video but whatever67.180.225.161 (talk) 10:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPA. It's not verifiable by reliable sources, only when you use your own judgment, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Rules are rules, call them hard-headed, but don't personally attack me. That's against the rules. --The Guy _complain ^edits 10:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not using my own judgment I'm saying "This is what it says this is what they have stated that he is one of the enemies from just 5 seconds of dialogue in the end of the video where they show his concept art" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.225.161 (talk) 10:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

REFERENCES & SOURCES

Well, there's lotta pplz around here most of 'em arn't possibly nerd or geek like us [:P]. So, u cant expect always PROPER method of contribution from 'em. They most likely hav some news... thot to add to wiki & they are done (in fact, wiki encourages nekinda contrib) without mensioning sources or references.

Now, as reguler editors, we hav a duty to make it perfect, not in this sense by reverting it - the guy already helped us by providing some info, wht we gotta do iz to find a confirmation link for that & make it wiki standerd. Thats It - y so serious ??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deblopper (talk • contribs) 22:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

November 18 hasn't been explicitly confirmed. The date on IGN's website is still placeholder/speculative. Until there's a confirmed release (usually through a news story), it shouldn't be added. Fin©™ 22:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

If you're referring to the user above, too, then I have good reasons to say that his information was mostly original research. --The Guy _complain ^edits 22:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Amazon lists it as "November 18" if that's what you need, Falcon. But yeah. --The Guy _complain ^edits 22:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Amazon uses placeholder dates - Duke Nukem Forever is coming out on November 30, according to Amazon, so it can't be used as a reliable source. Fin©™ 22:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Err... If Amazon can be treated as reliable resource to somone (might not be reliable to otherone, though) IGN is far more reliable than that in case of Video games. Moreover, Its the Latest Update we have, Look guyz, I work with Wikiproject:Software but the contributers there arent that conservative. nor do they repulse newcomers (Sorry if I sound hard, but I m really cool). It was previously stated Q4, now its 18 Nov... so its not contradicting with prev and have fairly good resource for it, & when we find a better resource or change in date from better reference.. we can ALWAYS change it. What I meant here above, is to stop asking New contributors for refenrece (they might not even kno how to add it) but You can search & add it urself too (if & only if theres a good resource & the info is tru).

Dude, are you still having any personal problem with me ? As per my conscience you were one of the Edit Warrior I've ever seen. Stop having problems with me, I thought we are done with it 3 months ago. – Deb ‖ Poke • EditList ‖ 22:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I do indeed search for references, and when I can't find them I put "reference please" in the edit summary, in case I missed something. If I can find the references, I add them. I never had personal problems with you, as I remember it. --The Guy _complain ^edits 23:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

(I can't tell which one of us he's addressing - edit conflict addition) IGN is more reliable than Amazon, but it still uses placeholder dates - it uses Q1 2009 for Just Cause 2, despite there being no announcements for that timeframe.
There isn't a problem with people adding unsourced information to articles, usually I'll slap a citation tag on it. The fact is, I know Prince of Persia doesn't have a confirmed release date yet. There's been no press release from Ubisoft stating so (which has become the norm in recent times). Once there is, then it's ok to add whatever date, but until that happens, I don't think information that we know is speculative should be added. The latest information UbiSoft has released states Q4, which is what I think we should stick with.
I don't remember talking to you before, though having looked through your talk page, I see I was talking to you because you were adding unsourced material to NFS: Undercover. Your sentence was kind of hard to understand, but I assume you're accusing me of picking on you, which I am not. I was reverting unsourced dates before you entered the discussion - I could just as easily say you were picking on me (which I'm not saying). Thanks! Fin©™ 23:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Good! – Deb ‖ Poke • EditList ‖ 23:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The Warrior?

The second developer diary was released recently, and it had specific information on a new boss - "the Warrior". I'd like to add this info to the article, but spontaneous edits of this page have had (cough) issues in the past. Should we add it? (The second dev. diary is on the official page - plus a new trailer, with the Warrior in it. Woot!) Riavar (talk) 03:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Spoiler!!! Headline

I took the liberty of removing the spoiler headline in the "Story" section as I would assume comes with the territory.NoGoodScoundrel (talk) 16:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Developer interview

For those interested in expanding the development section, I found this interview from Circuit City of all places. Hope it helps. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC))

Lack of DRM and PC protections

A lot of places are reporting no DRM/PC Protections for POP PC

http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/56328

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20081212-pc-prince-of-persia-contains-no-drm-its-a-trap.html

http://www.gamepolitics.com/2008/12/13/no-drm-prince-persia-what039s

My skills with article writing sucks as well as using wiki worth a crud... but anyone want to add in the info into the wiki page? I came to wiki first for the details and found none not even a blurb, sorry if I am posting out of order but I do not see any talk over the lack of DRM issue which is creating quite a dust up.

Edit this post as needed but stay on the ball guys, how you missed the DRM issue? :P (ZippyDSMlee ^talk 20:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC))

I added a little bit to the dev section. I was aware of it already, but thanks for finding decent sources. Thanks! Fin©™ 01:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

NP I try and add in what I can without dividing by zero, I'd try and add in any helpful info more often but gaaa mew bwains forget tags and the all the rules of wiki 0_o

(ZippyDSMlee ^talk 20:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC))

The lack of DRM paragraph was removed in the edit 04:06, 28 December 2008 Dude527 (Talk | contribs) m (17,483 bytes) (→Development: what do those have to do with development?) I'm not understanding why.146.115.34.7 (talk) 11:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't understand what DRM was, myself not being an avid PC gamer. I will re-add the information and be sure to elaborate, explaining what Digital rights management is, provided that a source for the notability of this issue is provided. As it stands, those three sources appear to have information taken from forums. That is generally unadvised, although if more sources appear, I will not be so quick to judge those three. --The Guy _complain ^edits 23:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Prohibition against forum content applies in the context of unreliable user comments. The forum posts in question are from Ubisoft representatives. It is a primary source, which has been covered by multiple secondary sources (the linked articles). This fulfills the basic requirements of verifiability. Consequently, I have re-added the DRM-free statement. Also, Dude/Guy, when you remove two paragraphs from an article, that is not by any stretch of the imagination a "minor" edit, especially when you admit to not understanding the content. "I don't understand what it is" is not a valid cause for removal. Ham Pastrami (talk) 04:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

You missed the point. I said I didn't know what "DRM" was, but I did understand what Digital rights management. In other words, I removed that because it was an acronym and I didn't know what it stood for. Please don't use acronyms on Wikipedia; I notice you also put in "PoP" as an acronym in the Reception section. This is very unprofessional, and inadvisable. Please don't do it. --The Guy _complain ^edits 02:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Comparable to other games

This is more of a general pondering than suggesting something be changed, but I found it curious how, amongst other games such as Ico, Okami and Assassin's Creed listed like inspirations for the game at the end of the reception section, I found Mirror's Edge, which was released less than a month before Prince of Persia. (You can take a breath now, I used a full stop.^^) I suppose the inclusion can then be defended as being part of a list that describes the game by similar games, but then again, when has wikipedia ever done this? Yours in curiosity, Prem-aka-Prince 19:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it was just added because it was something a reviewer had made a point of noting, not suggesting that it drew any inspiration from these games (after all, as you point out, Mirror's Edge was released the month before), but that it had similarities. For instance comparing Mirror's Edge, it was "at its best when everything feels like it's in a constant state of motion", so the reviewer has taken another game released a similar time for the reader of the review to compare/contrast it to. If the article seems at all to suggest that the reviewer feels this game's mechanics have somehow been influenced by Mirror's Edge, perhaps it needs rewording. SynergyBlades (talk) 20:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Game Title

Wasn't this called "Prince of Persia: Ghosts of the Past" or was the name dropped before the official release? 84.90.24.117 (talk) 00:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Prince of Persia (2008 video game). 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/20110721112804/http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/news/44315/Prince-of-Persia-Epilogue-DLC-Screenshots to http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/news/44315/Prince-of-Persia-Epilogue-DLC-Screenshots
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090501064743/http://www.gametrailers.com:80/player/34580.html to http://www.gametrailers.com/player/34580.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090223101156/http://www.interactive.org:80/awards/annual_awards.asp?idAward=2009 to http://www.interactive.org/awards/annual_awards.asp?idAward=2009

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} 21:11, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Prince of Persia (2008 video game). 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/20090410063732/http://www.gametrailers.com:80/player/33651.html to http://www.gametrailers.com/player/33651.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090420034740/http://www.gametrailers.com:80/player/34326.html to http://www.gametrailers.com/player/34326.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} 21:53, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Source

Interview and archived link. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:55, 16 July 2016 (UTC)