Talk:Warcraft Adventures: Lord of the Clans
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. | |
|
CVG To-do:
|
||
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Warcraft, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Warcraft on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
|
Warcraft To-do:
|
|
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm Could someone explain why union restrictions would have prevent Roper's voice from being used in the game (or perhaps a better question is what would the consequences have been if he had provided new recordings for a major character or two)?
- Not knowing anything about it, the point of a union is to assure the union members get jobs and salaries. If Roper had voiced characters he would potentially take the place of one or two union members and do their jobs, thereby saving their salary. The union would (if it is a proper union) protect its members and their right to these jobs, and one of the actions it could take is to boycott the game and/or Blizzard. Depending on what voice actor names are in the union, that could have been more or less damaging to the game (and future games). Or so I imagine.. Poulsen 12:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's how I would imagine too from the general nature of unions. In general, though, I don't understand why the Screen Actors' Guild would be of any particular importance to video games. I guess I'm just surprised that a video game developer would go to the effort (and costs) of using SAG members at all.
-
- The particular union did not allow it's union members to partake in a project that involves non Union members. So if Roper who wasnt a member of the actors union did acting work, the other actors could not work on the project. Roper could of filled in a special exception form or what not to get around the issue but paper work is always annoying and an elegant solution was found in resampling his old voice work. - UnlimitedAccess 12:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
The "Game Features" section needs to go. It doesn't read like an encyclopedia - it's advertising material - certainly not NPOV. Besides, how could we justify a features section for a game that never existed, was never played? I shall wait a little for comment, then remove it. Endomorphic 01:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- Well okay, the only reason I included it was for historic reference, since the game was never released all we have to go on is the advertised "Game Features" which I would argue gives it more noteworthiness. If it could perhaps be stated like a quote rather than a wiki section it may be better. The other option is of course just to include the information into the article somewhere else, some of the key facts purported in it that give the section usefulness is the 70 characters, 60 locations and 40,000 frames of animation. If those three pieces could be located some where else I see no reason to keep that section. - UnlimitedAccess 11:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- Those numbers are the exact things I dispute. The game was never made. There never were 70 characters, nor 60 locations, nor 40,000 frames of animation. I'd let them be incorporated into text somewhere else with the disclaimer "Blizard intended the game to include 70 characters..." or suchlike, though. Endomorphic 20:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
