World War II Online was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result October 19, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed November 21, 2007 WikiProject peer review Reviewed
Current status: Former good article nominee

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Video games Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Archives

Archive 1 - Discussion prior to June, 2009

When 1.31 is official, do we go through the article and replace all screenshots not related to the 'History' and 'Damage model' sections of the article with v1.31 screenshots? I think yes. Newtwowiki (talk) 17:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed DocVM (talk) 14:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since the game is constantly evolving, all the captions for the screenshots should include the game version number (1.29, 1.30, etc). It would help keep the screenshots time relevant. Newtwowiki (talk) 17:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed DocVM (talk) 14:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all there are not any third party sources listed which backup the statement of the section, which makes it even more obvious that this is just a statement of opinion.
It is also obvious that the reasoning behind this section is flawed because there will always be a lack of realism in a game.

Are there any (excepth the sections author) objections to completely remove this section? --Datenschleuder (talk) 13:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The selective realism section is just a troll edit. Completely unjust and unverifiable. This page seems to attract wikipedia trolls, or haters of the game. Vigilance is definitely needed to make sure this article remains unbiased and fair. DocVM (talk) 17:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Equipment gets ninja edited by developers very often. Latest ninja change: - Allied ATR doesn't penetrate Pz38t and PzIVD They also make unhistorical choices to address game balance, like changing MGFF/M belting.

Some of the equipment is over/undermodeled from the beginning. Like M4A2 Shermans mantlet and rotor shield, it's modeled as 140mm thick armor plate while in reality the thickness varies between 60-150mm with the mantlet and rotor shield averaging around 90mm together. 90mm vs. 150mm, pretty gross overmodeling of equipment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.22.31.109 (talk) 10:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The game is a simulation, which by definition is selective and limited realism. Pointless discussion. Newtwowiki (talk) 18:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moving externals links within article to ref list (Wikipedia:External links section 1, point 2). --Covi (talk) 12:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hitting RESET. :) I believe a lot of the old discussions were either resolved or very out of date. It was just a confusing mess to boot. Recently, I significantly revised the article to be more in-line with Wikipedia form/tone. I think the article is now in good shape and fulfills the intent of Wikipedia - ie, it's about general information, not a place to nitpick over every little thing we don't like about the game. There are plenty of game forums out there for that. In any case, the new year is a good time to start fresh so future discussion can be more focused. I thank Covi and Warthog for improving/protecting the article since, in the same spirit.

If you want something from the previous discussions saved, copy and paste it back from the previous version rather than doing a full undo/revert. Thanks, I know doing a full unilateral reset is a bit out there, but a think a clean slate will be positive so the focus can be on new improvements rather than old quibbles. Newtwowiki (talk) 16:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Newtwowiki, I reverted your change and created an archive instead, which is how long talk pages are typically dealt with (rather than deleting them). Please see the archive box at the top of the page for the old discussions. Take care, TastyCakes (talk) 17:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks, didn't know about archive. All good either way. Newtwowiki (talk) 18:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thanks for trying to clean up the talk page, it was definitely too long and messy. TastyCakes (talk) 18:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think one of the big issues that people would be interested in is would be the subscription model? Is it pay-to-play or free? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.153.29.23 (talk) 06:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's pay to play. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.170.209.138 (talk) 18:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should the subscription prices and builder program be included in the article? DocVM (talk) 14:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are several screenshots with a size of 325×244, stating in the file description under "Low resolution? " "No - this is a common screen resolution as players would experience it, so a higher resolution image gives a more accurate understanding of the game."

This is very misleading, since 325x244 surely isn not a common screen resolution and might lead to the assumption that BGE is a game you can only play in windowed mode. It would be good, if this could be changed, imho.

94.216.250.74 (talk) 08:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there should be some mention of the continually declining size of the player base. Recent updates have been released for times when there are only enough players for ONE attack order on each side. I know many people who refuse to play the game as there is often very little action (due to the lack of players). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.31.235.110 (talk) 20:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What? If we're going by anecdotal evidence, then the new patch has brought a lot of new players into the game. However we're not, so unless you have a source, please refrain from adding speculation. DocVM (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This section lists several "excuses" for the extraordinary high system requirements.

The client system performs military grade simulation calculations regarding ordnance and weapon performance, damage models, collision, and movement across the terrain

These computations do not require a significant CPU time. This assertion is based on measurements on the client.

WWIIOL also models a 6000 meter visual range, compared to a more standard 500 meter range typical in other games, significantly increasing the number of items that may need to be rendered, and thus decreasing the number of polygons used to detail each item.

There are several other games (Arma2, Battle of Britain, etc.) which feature even larger scenes with greater complexity but have much lower system requirements.

I am going to replace this with the observations by several players that there are many situations in the game where even the fastest CPUs on the market cannot mentain a frame rate of 30 FPS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.235.81.63 (talk) 15:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the information you added since it's not supported by a reliable source. Even if it was, going into such details as precise frame rate counts is discouraged because Wikipedia is not a gameguide. Eik Corell (talk) 15:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]