Template talk:Prophecies cinematics

cinematics and such

I took the liberty to create this template for the Prophecies cinematics. I have numbered cinematics of missions with multiple cinematics, and named the first cinematic "Intro (Prophecies)". It is possible that I'm missing a couple of cinematics, I'm not quite sure about Ring of Fire and Abaddon's Mouth. Also, I haven't created links for all the cinematics that show up during the Dragon's Lair mission; one for the many portal-cinematics, one for the part where one reaches glinth, and one for the bonus should be enough, I reckon. Feel free to change the template if you have a better idea, this is a start, at least. —Why 20:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Say, for example, there are two cinamtics for Great Northern Wall. Have both cinematics on one page, Great Northern Wall (cinematic), but perhaps separate them with headers. I wouldn't like to see multiple pages for one "story," so to speak (the "story" being a mission). -- Brains12 \ talk 18:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, since almost all of them are mission cinematics, we could place them as sub-pages? For example ((The Great North Wall/Cutscene 1)), ((The Great North Wall/Cutscene 2)), etc?--Fighterdoken 18:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Would it be better if we kept it consistent with "Blah (cinematic)"? (Even if we go for the subpages, I'd still prefer them to be on one page only.) -- Brains12 \ talk 19:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

They should probably be sub-pages for the specific cinematic's page, so you'd have The Great Northern Wall (cinematics)/1 and The Great Northern Wall (cinematics)/2 which would just contain the dialogue itself. That way you can have the cinematic page with the infobox and navigation template, as well as using the sub-pages over on the mission page itself. I do not think any cinematics without dialogue need to be mentioned though.

I do think the navigation template should be broken up into story sections instead of region since you have that problem with Riverside Province and Sanctum Cay being listed before the Maguuma Jungle. So you'd have maybe Prologue for Pre-Searing, then Aftermath for Ascalon and the Northern Shiverpeaks, The Unseen for Kryta and the Maguuma Jungle, Ascension for the Crystal Desert, then The Chosen for the Southern Shiverpeaks and Ring of Fire Islands. Sounds Risky | 19:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll move the GNW stuff onto one page unless you were going to — Seru Talk 22:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

And i think it should be "The White Mantle" not "The Unseen" — Seru Talk 22:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) That's fine, but hold off on making any more until a consensus is reached about the layout and handling of the individual pages. As for the Kryta arc name, I thought The Unseen would not only reference the White Mantle and their gods, but also reference the Shining Blade's rebellion and their hidden efforts to stop the Mantle. It can be changed if necessary of course. Sounds Risky | 22:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Well you can use what i did to test that. And about the name idk i just don't like Unseen there since in every mission you are either fight with or against the White Mantle. The Mursaat show up later in the game, but the White Mantle stop as Sanctum — Seru Talk 22:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, thinks the current split is sorta odd. While there is two primary stories in Proph, with tGoK as a transfer (so how do we place that one?), the other splits eem a bit arbitray.. or something. Backsword 02:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

IMO the cinematics should use the name on the loading screen, with a disambiguation identifier if necessary. If there is no loading screen, I think the cinematic should be incorporated into the mission article since it's not a separate zone and cinematic dialogue is part of the mission's dialogue. -- Gordon Ecker 07:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, that would create a huge mess due to cinematic NPCs, however I still think that the dialogue sections of mission articles should include cinematic dialogue. I don't think there should be more than one cinematic article per mission. -- Gordon Ecker 07:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Right, would it be possible to use a cinematic's sub-pages on the subsequent mission pages? As for the splits, since the whole Crystal Desert storyline is kind of isolated and has its own arc (it really seems like a side-story until Glint's lair), it seems like the right point to make a split. Gates of Kryta could potentially be moved to the Aftermath section since the Lion's Arch cinematic for foreign characters acts as an introduction into the White Mantle/Unseen section. Sounds Risky | 07:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I think having subpages like <mission> (cinematics)/1 and .../2 for the dialogue only would be a good idea, because then the dialogue can be easily included in both the Mission page and the cinematic page. Gates of Kryta should probably be moved to the Aftermath indeed, as it is essentially part of the journey over the shiverpeak mountains, even though it plays in Kryta. Also, imho, The White Mantle would probably be a better name than The Unseen, in my opinion, as the mursaat do not really enter the story until Ice Caves, and players mainly have to deal with the white mantle until then. (I mean, the enemy worships some unseen gods, so what, we've got more important matters on our hands, as, for instance, how to keep them from chopping our heads off...) —Why 10:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The White Mantle seems...uncreative. Maybe New Troubles or New Beginnings since it's the start of the "real" storyline. Sounds Risky | 19:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Im going to move GoK into The White Mantle section since its the first Missions without Rurik and the first with the White Mantle. — Seru Talk 05:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Gates of Kryta still belongs to the Aftermath, as you are still an ascalonian warrior fighting to bring your people to safety in the lands of Kryta. Imo, the precense of the White Mantle in that mission is just logical, as they're the ruling power of Kryta. But the story about the White Mantle doesn't start untill you, the player character, join their organisation in D'Alessio Seaboard. So as Risky said, lets not make such edits before having talked them through here. —Why 10:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok — Seru Talk 16:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and re-structured The Great Northern Wall (cinematics) with sub-pages, as well as using them on the mission's page as well, while still using Seru's link to the cinematics page. Thoughts? Sounds Risky | 18:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

If we put it in two places isn't that a waste of GWW space? I think that we should leave it as a link and have the dialogue box on the mis page as the dialogue they say in the mission aka the popup boxes and stuff like that. — Seru Talk 18:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I think not, as, basicly, the dialogue is only saved on The Great Northern Wall (cinematics)/1 and ../2 and merely included on The Great Northern Wall and The Great Northern Wall (cinematics), not actually saved there. I could be wrong though. But I've never heard ANet complain about us taking too much wiki space anywhere. I think the structure you made is great, Risky. —Why 19:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC) edit: Somehow we've lost the second cinematic infobox at The Great Northern Wall (cinematics), was this intentional? I think having two looked OK, one for each cinematic.—Why 19:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC) edit: I also added a header, so we can edit this section, that's probably easier when editing.—Why 19:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed it since they contained the exact same information, though I suppose multiple images could be added to the template. Sounds Risky | 19:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I think he removed it. You should really have a box for each section or edit the info box to include more than one picture. — Seru Talk 19:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Check this out. Ill keep working on a switch so it would have 1, 2, 3, ect boxes to match all the cinematics. — Seru Talk 20:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Additional images should probably go below the information, like the Template:Region infobox. Sounds Risky | 20:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Also when you add everything into one you moved all the characters into one part. That makes things odd since all the people listed are not in each Cinematic. let me work how i think it sohuld look in my sandbox — Seru Talk 20:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I for one very much oppose the removal of the second box and the adding of new images. Of cource, in this particular article, the second box is a bit redundant, as both cinematics have nearly the exact same setting. But you also deleted the "characters" header for the second cinematic. Sometimes, characters vary a real lot between cinematics, for instance, at Divinity Coast, one cinematic you're talking to Justicar Whatshisname, the other cinematic the Shining Blade are kidnapping the Chosen. Therefore, I think we need to keep the second "characters" header, and why not place a second Cinematic Infobox with that header? To name something, the cinematic Location might be totally different. —Why 20:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I am going to leave my next comments here. This page is for the template not the pages themself. We might want to move half of this convo — Seru Talk 20:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) You're just needlessly over-complicating the pages with multiple infoboxes and character sections. You might as well break it up into seperate pages at that point. Sounds Risky | 20:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorrows Furnace

If i remember right Doesnt Sorrows Furnace has cinematics? — Seru Talk 16:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

=O You're totally right.. I remember at least one, the scene where the Flame Djinns spawn from The Iron Forgeman. —Why 19:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

None of them have any dialogue. Sounds Risky | 19:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

But well, as I'm a completist by nature.. wouldnt't it be better to make a Sorrows Furnace header aswell? After all, we're making cinematic pages, not dialogue.. I might be taking it a bit over the top though. —Why 19:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I can certainly understand, but the real content of these pages are the dialogue, so the Sorrow's Furance pages would really be nothing more then the infobox and navigation box. Sounds Risky | 19:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right. Perhaps we should include more images in the cinematic pages, but that's something to discuss elsewhere. —Why 10:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)