Talk:Kasumi: Stealing Memory

Trivia
I figure we should list all the trivia and references made in this mission here, until all have been compiled.

For example, if you examine the Statue of Liberty head, Kasumi makes a reference to the original Planet of the Apes. She says "How did Hock get Lady Liberty's head? Damn you, Hock!" upon seeing it. 18:01, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

I think my personal favorite is seeing the name of the achievement for completing the mission. I love the Ocean's series and seeing it possibly mentioned here (looks close enough for me at least) is freakin awesome! Gotta love how Basher just kinda shrugs nonchalantly and goes "Right" like its just another day at the office Skitz470 08:53, April 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, yea... it was Shepard's Eleven. Now it's like... Shepard's 13, too bad there's no one munching on something everytime the camera's on him :D. Prismvg 20:54, April 9, 2010 (UTC)

Alarm clock
Allrighty, so guards attack you if you activate the clock? How does that work? I escaped unnoticed, so now I'm really interested in finding out what triggers this. Prismvg 22:01, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * I investigated the alarm clock like the rest of the items throughout Hock's apartment for DNA and it went off, thus summoning the guards outside the door into the room. I'm rather surprised to hear this hasn't happened for others. --The Illusive Man 22:03, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe it is level dependent and maybe glitchy so I retry it when I am not as busy. Lancer1289 22:04, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * The alarm clock brought in guards for me. Tophvision 19:24, April 8, 2010 (UTC)\

Right, so I replayed that part twice. Once with my Normal difficulty character and again with my Insanity diff character. Both level 30. Still no guards, so difficulty isn't the issue. Have to say that the "It's a plant" and "Aha" lines from Kasumi and Shepard respectively cracked me up (how they both chuckle). Also, is that a really ugly Scottish accent in Hock's speech? Prismvg 20:41, April 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * LOL, Scottish! - It's a South African accent. Alarm clock brought guards for me too. It just seems to call the guards early so the exit can be unlocked when you sneak in, as the guards come when you exit the room anyway.
 * Perhaps it is dependent on whether you sneak in or have the guard let you in. I'll try it later, no time now. Invataion for anyone else to test both circumstances for confirmation. Lancer1289 20:49, April 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * And how exactly do you sneak in? Prismvg 20:51, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

I added the details of how to sneak in and cleared it up. The alarm clock will summon guards ONLY if you sneak in. I hope that will clear this up. Lancer1289 22:21, April 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * I also modified some wording based on replaying it again. Lancer1289 22:23, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

Well, I guess that settles it. Haven't noticed the balcony railing... Prismvg 08:03, April 9, 2010 (UTC)

""

Dragon Age Statue
Currently we don't really have anything official so please leave it as is until something official or an Admin makes a ruling. Lancer1289 23:11, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

Um why? It's pretty obvious that is an ogre, you guys should really stop it with the official confimartion stuff when there is clear visual evidence. Seriously, get the stick off your butts.
 * Because we have had trivia like this before where while it may be apparent it could also reference medieval tales or the Lord of the Rings. Lancer1289 04:57, April 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, I believe you meant 'get the stick out of your butts', as 'get the stick off your butts' makes absolutely no sense. None at all. SpartHawg948 05:04, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

Right, cause this looks exactly like other ogres from other lores and not the one Dragon Age, sorry this doesn't make sense at all.
 * What doesn't make sense at all? The trivia bit notes that the statue is identical to DA:O Ogres, and says it is likely a reference. As with all trivia, unless we have actual devconfirmation (aka confirmation from an actual developer) that it is a reference, we can't phrase it as an absolute. SpartHawg948 17:36, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

So you're not sure, that a statue of a creature from another game by the same company isn't a reference?
 * We need something official becuase look here for trivia sections. Trivia sections are hard because they do have a habit of getting out of hand, fast. Lancer1289 18:18, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

I understand, but this little bit isn't "out of hand". This IS a reference to DAO.
 * The policy is we need something official before changing. Lancer1289 18:24, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

It's right in your face http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ylHlNv0ChHg/SxNDIpGyISI/AAAAAAAAAdQ/BerBxMMFR34/s1600/Ogre.jpg http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/3739/darkspawn.jpg

right if this isn't a reference to Dragon Age, then Ashley is an atheist. I know this wiki had people running around doing stupid crap, but when there is clear evidence of something, you don't need "official"

Oh, common, who releases statements on references? Did they come out and say "Hey, Tali's drone's name is a reference to Baldur's Gate, write that down"? References are supposed to be subtle. No one tells the catch when telling a joke (well, maybe only if the dumbhead didn't understand the joke - and I believe we aren't dumb, are we?). I'm sorry, but in this particular case, the policy is simply stupid.Prismvg 18:29, April 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Writers from BioWare. We've had them comment on this site and on these trivia items before. SpartHawg948 18:33, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

You see? I'm not the only one, also sorry about the pic, I'm trying to make it smaller but it's not letting me.


 * Wow. A poster some guy somewhere created. This changes EVERYTHING! Or NOTHING!. Yeah, definitely NOTHING. We still need something more to go on before changing 'is likely' to 'is'. Don't like it? Direct complaints to BioWare, who couldn't even be bothered to do something more conclusive like name the statute 'Ogre' instead of 'Creature'. For all we know, it was a simple reuse of a model with no reference intended. I'm inclined to agree it's a reference, but we need a definitive statement before we state it definitively. SpartHawg948 18:38, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

The writers aren't commenting about this, and this is a reference to Dragon age...for the love of God.

I don't see what the problem is with having the word "likely" in the trivia. That is merely stating that the visual similarities are uncanny, but not officially a direct reference. I can plainly see it, but I am not going to get into a pointless argument over something so trivial. &mdash;ArmeniusLOD 18:37, April 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey, I have no problem with the way it is. I had a problem when this bit was actually deleted from another article a day or two before, invoking the "official statement" stuff. But it seems to me like sometimes these kind of things are treated like a damn criminal case. Prismvg 18:46, April 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm gonna have to agree with the anon, the evidence is overwhelming and it is a reference, I think the word "likely" has to go. Sorry but the rules don't really apply here, and we have to learn how to be flexible in certain situations that need it, if we are too rigid it'll just be bad. --Fatherbrain30 18:50, April 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * But that's the thing. Either the rules always apply, or the rules never do. If there's any middle ground, there is always going to be an argument in any conceivable situation that "well this is just another of those cases in which the rules don't apply". I would be somewhat inclined to agree IF the statue were actually called 'Ogre', but it isn't! It's called 'Creature'. And Kasumi's dialogue doesn't contain any hints at it being an Ogre either. Again, for all we know, it's a simple model reuse to save time and money. As such, the rules dictate that the statement be worded as it is, that it 'is likely' a reference. SpartHawg948 19:07, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

Hey SpartHawg, that's the only picture I found of the staute of the game. This whole thing is stupid, the rules don't apply to this. Also Sparthawg, Capitalism is destroying this country and the world.
 * Talk about out of left field... Please direct commentary bashing me and my worldview to my user talk page, as it doesn't belong here. SpartHawg948 18:44, April 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Addendum- I guess capitalism can't be that big of a threat... I practically begged the guy to post on my talk page, providing a direct link and everything. Too bad. I was getting all excited, too. Had about 10 counterarguments worked up just off the top of my head. Oh well... I'll stop with this off-topic nonsense now! :P SpartHawg948 01:25, April 9, 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it is a reference to Dragon Age, but I also don't see the problem. The article admits that the statue is identical to a troll, and connects it to Dragon Age. That should be enough. That poster is funny, though. Tophvision 19:28, April 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm pretty sure it's a reference as well. In fact, I'm the one who added the link to the Dragon Age wiki article and pointed out that they are identical. However, given the complete lack of anything else containing any hint of a reference (ie the statue being labeled 'Creature', not 'Ogre' and the lack of any dialogue or description even hinting at a link) it isn't certain. And again (beginning to feel like a broken record here), for all we know, they just reused an existing model rather than taking the time and money to come up with a new one. I'll admit, I don't really think that's the case, but barring a statement from an official source, it is a possibility. The 'likely' stays. SpartHawg948 19:37, April 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, references are supposed to be subtle. Of course it isn't called "Ogre". It's a different universe entirely. You can't have Legion strolling into Denerim and people saying "Oh, that's a Geth". And the recycled model point is kinda . You don't seriously believe the ME2 team have reused a model from DAO just to save time. Prismvg 19:40, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

No I don't. That's why I said "I'll admit, I don't really think that's the case". There is an outside chance though. And a subtle reference could still include some subtle dialogue reference as well. Maybe a comment about how it looks like it could pick you up and crush you with its bare hands. Still, site policy is site policy. Although I will admit, the idea of Legion strolling through Denerim does bring a smile to my face... :) SpartHawg948 19:52, April 8, 2010 (UTC) I wasn't suggesting the "likely" should go, just saying the article is fine as is. :) Tophvision 20:29, April 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * I will admit, though, as far as the "reuse of an existing model" bit, a small part of me had wondered if this might possibly have something to do with the delay on the release of the DLC. Maybe the original model that was there had something to do with the alleged glitch, so at the last moment they removed it and used the pre-existing ogre model. No evidence whatsoever to suggest it, just an idea I had... SpartHawg948 19:54, April 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well in that case, I concur! :) SpartHawg948 20:32, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

How about more likely than not? it is exactly the same as a DAO ogre, which looks hardly anything like most other ogres in fantasy lore, the horns are a dead give away, the ape like face is another, the exact same armor also points to this. . . . . vOv. . . . oh and a side not sparthawg, if you have a horribly vivid imagination like mine, get the stick off your butts actually makes perfect sense, i pray to god that it didnt though, the imagery is. . . terrfying ralok 21:34, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

"Likely" a reference because there's no confirmation? Common, SpartHawg, I know you're a stickler for the rules and notability, but this is getting ridiculous. RedViking 22:17, April 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not "a stickler for the rules", I'm the person charged with seeing that the rules are enforced even if I may not agree with them occasionally, as is the case in this instance. Don't try to blow this out of proportion by trying to set me up as something I'm not here. SpartHawg948 00:05, April 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm gonna message one of the Devs, either Chris or David and ask them if this ogre statue is a model reuse because of time constraints. I'm sure they'll have a laugh at that. --Fatherbrain30 01:37, April 9, 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan! I'm always a fan of a good chuckle. :) SpartHawg948 01:38, April 9, 2010 (UTC)

ya know...kinda sad that people are getting so outraged that the word likely has to be in there...hell if you feel in your mind it IS a reference then shit, its a reference to you, if someone else feels it isnt...then it isnt...this isnt exactly the word of God we are dealing with here....its a site about a video game for christs sake, chill out people and stop complaining....if the rules state that likely has to remain...then they remain...dont like it form your own wiki *shrug* Skitz470 08:50, April 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed! I couldn't agree more! (And no, I'm not just agreeing because the above contributor and I used to work together! :P ) SpartHawg948 09:02, April 9, 2010 (UTC)

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reference Accordign to this, it doesnt seem that a reference is something that needs to be pointed out, i direct your eyes to the second definition, in a video game is certainly seems to me that re using a model from another game would be basically the same as a character in a book talking about another book. Consider the jak and daxter picture in ratchets apartment in the second ratchet and clank video game. ralok 09:31, April 9, 2010 (UTC)

I concur. In fact, if it would be clearly pointed out, it would not be a reference but a break of continuity. Really, what would be the point of making references if you actually marked them as such afterwards? Not wishing to offend, i can simply not help but call this entire discussion utterly antic. While I would rather agree that it is good policy to be cautious when in doubt before calling something a reference, this applies only WHEN IN DOUBT. Any more obvious a reference than an almost identical model of a game released [circa] at the same time, by the very same company, who also made a joint pre-order item for both games and it would jump out of the game and hit the player in the face with a Dragon Age-Collectors Edition Box, which would be only slightly less subtle thant the statue is now. The Devs probably don't confirm it because they would feel too silly doing so, as if they were confirming that the Head of Lady Liberty was indeed a 'reference' to said statue...


 * But they'd have no need to confirm that the head of the Statue of Liberty is a 'reference' to the statue, because it IS the head of the Statue of Liberty, a statue which is known to exist in the Mass Effect universe. It was created in 1886, well before the presumed point of departure from our own timeline. The only way that it could be likened to the Ogre statue is if Ogres were also known to exist on Earth in our modern day and age. Intentionally or not, the comparison to Lady Liberty is a classic example of the straw man fallacy. As for how they could have made it less subtle than it is now, hmmm... let's see. Maybe they could have ACTUALLY CALLED THE STATUE 'Ogre' INSTEAD OF 'Creature'!!! Were it to be labeled as an ogre, it'd be 100% clear that it was an intentional reference, as opposed to just a reuse of a model, or what have you. As they didn't even bother to label it as an ogre, or to insert any other subtle references in dialogue or anything, it's gotta be substantiated with 'likely'. SpartHawg948 17:29, April 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * Why would they label it "Ogre" instead of "Creature"? The art of making a reference is to take a thing of one branch and place it seamlessly into another, to, in this case, transferring an object from dragon age into mass effect without it appearing unnatural. It needs not be blatantly clear or identical. It may be, as it was here, to transform a living, breathing animal (or whatever it may be) into what was arguably a work of art by an unknown artist. He might have called it something different entirely. It matters not: what is important is solely the reconizeability. No one who played dragon age would wonder what the statue depicts. Had it been put in by a different company, there would likely as not be a legal battle raging right now. Or in short: if it has a saucer and two nancelles you need not call it enterprise, that would mark it as a rather unimaginative copy rather than a (unimaginative and unsubtle as well) reference wanting to be found. In fact, to return to the matter at hand, not calling it ogre is precisely what's interesting about a reference and what prompts people to post it on a wiki, and readers (that have not played dragon age, anyway) to chuckle at it. A 'subtle' reference in dialog, about a creature that is labeled ogre, that shares the model of a creature called ogre in a game that... (i would repeat myself here. Look above to complete the sentence) would be as subtle as a secret door that was painted in red, and labeled "secret door".


 * As for your point about the statue of liberty, i completely agree: At no point did I call it an actual reference (to emphasize that point, I had even put 'reverence' in single quotes...), It was the whole point of the analogy that the statue was not a reference, and that it would seem ridiculous to say it were, just as it would be ridiculous to point out that the ogre was one. You are, however, entirely correct when you point out that there was, indeed, a fallacy in my argument, but not the straw man fallacy, which essentially consists of deliberately misrepresenting an opponent's point, but rather a false analogy, since I used an analogy (i.e. a likeness) for something that's different.


 * You say false analogy, I say straw man. After all, a straw man is just creating the illusion of debunking an argument by presenting an easily debunked, superficially similar case that really doesn't relate at all, such as the purported Statue of Liberty reference. A straw man doesn't have to be intentional, it can be done without the person who committed the fallacy knowing they've done it. As for labeling it an ogre, not a creature, regardless of why they didn't, they didn't. Thus, there is still the proverbial 'shadow of a doubt'. And there was no dialogue to suggest a link, even though it could have been inserted without being the equivalent of your 'secret red door'. Example- instead of Kasumi commenting that she wouldn't want to run into it in a dark alley, she could, commenting on its size and massive outstretched hand, have commented that it looked like something that could just pick you up and crush you with its bare hand, or something to that effect. It's likely a reference, but given that it's the same company, we can't say for certain, given the lack of any confirming dialogue or labeling, that it was an intentional reference and not a model reuse. We've stretched the rules to their limit, by labeling it a likely reference, mentioning that the two are identical, and providing a link to the ogre article on the Dragon Age wiki. The only thing we haven't done is violate site policy by changing 'is likely a reference' to 'is a reference', as this is only done when we have developer confirmation of something, which in this case we do not. For the life of me, I can't understand why this is such a huge issue to people. SpartHawg948 18:31, April 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * would it be a break in continuity if . . . . dragon age origins the video game exsisted within hte mass effect universe, that owuld warp reality i think not to mention cause a few paradoxs ralok 16:56, April 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * Mine was a poor choice of words, i have to admit. I maintain, however, that it would be a break of atmosphere, if they indulged too much, and too literally, in the world, wording, and lore of dragon age and dwelled on it in order to clarify that the ogre was, in fact, a reference to it, rather than quickly,placing it there, for the player to be discovered and recognized, as it easily is.


 * If we bend the rules here than all it does is open the door for complete abuse of the trivia sections of the articles. Many people have commented that it is a reference, and SpartHawg is the one who added the link and made the comparison. However unless we have something official, we can't change it. As Spart said somewhere earlier in this mess, either the rules apply all the time or they never apply, or something along those lines.


 * Also I'm sure that if anyone from BioWare is watching this they are having probably a good laugh about it. Lancer1289 18:36, April 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Found it "Either the rules always apply, or the rules never do." (SpartHawg948 19:07, April 8, 2010 (UTC)) Lancer1289 18:39, April 13, 2010 (UTC)

I'm gonna make this short, because goddamn, Spart and Lancer, if you need verification from the authors that that "creature" is an ogre from DA:O, YOU GUYS ARE MORONS. And laughable ones at that! Simply put! This entire discussion can be used as -verification- that you, sirs, are MORONS. And stuck up ones at that! You have serious ego problems my friends, you can't accept you're wrong, you should talk to a therapist. Hell you could probably get a group session and take the other wikipedia egoists with you.

HAHAHAHAHA.

Wow I can just imagine a Bioware author in an interview being asked this: "Is the creature statue in the Kasumi DLC in fact a reference to the ogres in the DA:O series?" "What statue?" "The one that resembles an ogre from the DA:O series". He'd probably laugh at you just as much as I did.

That is an ogre from DA:O, get over it. FrankHluller 20:26, April 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * A couple of things... first off, I have gotten over it, as I expressed above. I personally made the trivia comment literally as definitive as it can be without developer confirmation. This is site policy. Nothing but. Don't like it? Leave. As I've said above, I have no idea why people like you keep pinging over this. Second, please refer to the site language policy. Both vulgar language (which you used) and insulting other users (which you did) are violations of said policy, and can get you banned. Third, as for ego problems, nothing points to ego problems like someone who has to keep putting others down to get their jollies. I certianly don't have to resort to mocking others (such as calling them laughable morons, and "HAHAHAHAHA") to make myself feel like a big man. Finally, not sure who these wikipedia egotists are. I have only made 320 edits to wikipedia in over 3 years, and again, I don't need to insult others to get my rocks off. Hardly a 'wikipedia egotist'. SpartHawg948 04:18, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * I am also over the issue becuse I gave up on this conversation but when my character is insulted I feel I have a need to reply. So I have. I had a long worded statement in word but I feel that is just me ranting for the last 20 minutes. So to summerize, I'm over it and calling others names is low. Lancer1289 04:48, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * For the love of God, those arguments about "model reuse" and "not-called-ogre" are as likely to be true as Shepard being a remodeled dwarf. You don't design a room filled with, like, 10 models, and use one model from another title to save time. They could've used another krogan, or a thresher maw, or the thorian, anything, or better yet, NOTHING, if they trully wanted to save time. This, in a game filled with references. And not one of those references keeping their target's exact name. Every single DA:O and ME2 player KNOWS that the statue is a reference. Just Google "ogre statue in mass effect 2" and every freaking page callls it a reference, not a repurposed model. Allright, keep the phrasing as it is and "stretch the rules" until we have "confirmation", I get it, these are the standards, like it or not; but seriously, let the ogre be a damn ogre, not spare parts. And this should be my final rant on this topic. Prismvg 21:56, April 13, 2010 (UTC)

But in-game, it isn't an ogre. It's a creature. I know it isn't a model reuse, but I also know that it is, in fact, not called an ogre. As such, and lacking devconfirmation, the current version is as explicit and definitive as it can be. I don't really like it, but the rules are what they are, and I'm not in the habit of breaking rules just because I think they're silly, especially not when I'm also the one who has to enforce the rules. If I were t do this, I'd be a hypocrite. I'm happy that you accept this is the way it is, and I really wish that other people could be so understanding, but I'm also exasperated, because continued comments like yours do contribute to the needless continuation of this discussion, which leads people to be colossal tools, like FrankHluller, as seen above. SpartHawg948 04:23, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

Information that could doom the alliance?


This is so far the only hint I can find about that information that can implicate the alliance as a hole. A reaper? A robot? An Artificial Inteligent?

Please debate. KaTiON PT 23:35, April 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the Council has caught the Alliance working on AIs before, and it wasn't anywhere near as bad as "dooming" the Alliance. There were some temporary economic sanctions that hurt the Alliance for a little bit, but as we've seen, it didn't really affect the Alliance's relationship with the Council at all. So probably not info on an AI. SpartHawg948 23:56, April 10, 2010 (UTC)

This is what the call a foreshadowing, i cant tell if its a foreshadowing of a future dlc or mass effet 3 though, i hope it means more dlc personally, it looks like a reaper lookign thing, maybe ethat one dude ho is having his mind redownloaded from a machine back into his body (i am not sure this is actually heppening) is gettign a reaper downloaded with it ralok 00:45, April 11, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yep, pitty it has to be this way. KaTiON PT 19:51, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

Exploding Tanks
I was trying to hit one of the Eclipse Heavy Troopers in the area where you need to activate the cannon on the ground vehicle to blow up the tanks on the wall. In an effort to save myself the pain of a rocket to the face, I pulled out my Widow and tried to hit her. I missed, but the shot slammed into the tanks that I was supposed to blow up. Most of the time when you hit the thing with a weapon, Kasumi says that you need something stronger (at least, that's what she said when I tried the Vindicator). This time, the tanks blew up (though it may have required a couple of shots to do it). I'm not sure if this applies to any Sniper Rifle in general, or just to the Widow, and I really don't feel like replaying the entire first portion of the mission to find out, but it's an interesting way to get through the wall. Even if it does take a couple of shots to pull off.97.117.253.103 14:13, April 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, it is called an Anti-Materia(/e)l rifle, so it would make sense to live up to it's name. Prismvg 15:06, April 13, 2010 (UTC)

Pigeons
has anyone else noticed there are a lot of pigeons on this planet!






 * Do you have developer confirmation they are pigeons, or even birds for thay matter?
 * Why would devconfirmation be needed? Devconfirmation is only for instances in which there is an alleged reference to another work. With devconfirmation, references can be stated as fact, without, they can't be, and need to be qualified with words sich as 'likely' or 'may be'. I see no claim here that these animals are references to anything. SpartHawg948 01:21, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Clearly they are a referenece to birds on Earth, since we are not on Earth, we need undisputable evidence the devs meant for thees to be interperted as pigeons, otherwise the devs would have labeled them as pigeons
 * Not unless someone tries to insert that into the article. Although you did sort of nullify your own question. If the devs labeled them as pigeons (I wasn't sure as I didn't want to stop watching Netflix just to fire up the 360 for 20 seconds to check) then they are pigeons. Now, if they had just labeled them, for example, as 'Creatures', and someone inserted into the article that they were clearly 'pigeons' with no actual evidence to back this up, then yes, devconfirmation would become an issue. SpartHawg948 03:40, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Clearly they are a referenece to birds on Earth, since we are not on Earth, we need undisputable evidence the devs meant for thees to be interperted as pigeons, otherwise the devs would have labeled them as pigeons
 * Not unless someone tries to insert that into the article. Although you did sort of nullify your own question. If the devs labeled them as pigeons (I wasn't sure as I didn't want to stop watching Netflix just to fire up the 360 for 20 seconds to check) then they are pigeons. Now, if they had just labeled them, for example, as 'Creatures', and someone inserted into the article that they were clearly 'pigeons' with no actual evidence to back this up, then yes, devconfirmation would become an issue. SpartHawg948 03:40, May 9, 2010 (UTC)