[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/Jump to content

Talk:Wipeout 64

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleWipeout 64 has been listed as one of the Video games good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic starWipeout 64 is part of the Wipeout series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 7, 2014Good article nomineeNot listed
April 21, 2015Good article nomineeListed
June 23, 2017Good topic candidatePromoted
April 20, 2021Good topic removal candidateKept
Current status: Good article

Tracks are mirrors of previous designs

[edit]

I reinstated the paragraph by 71.228.184.137 from the 29 August 2007 as I found a whole bunch of people agreeing on a well-informed forum about it. I also compared each track against its supposed inspiration myself and the similarities are uncanny. If this is not a suitable reference I will understand. Can anyone find a better one? - RubyJester (talk) 20:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wipeout vs F-Zero X

[edit]

I've played F-Zero X before, but the only stuff I've seen first hand from Wipeout is three of the vehicles (Feisar, Van Huber, and Piranah) due to them being available as downloadable content for Trackmania. Because of the superior texture mapping of Wipeout from what I've read in this article, did the game suffer from framerate issues and lag? 65.13.84.34 (talk) 16:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Wipeout 64/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Czar (talk · contribs) 12:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Please respond below my signature so as to leave the original review uninterrupted.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    heavy jargon use, lack of clarity in Gameplay
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:


I'll get to this latest by this weekend czar ♔ 12:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Gameplay is written for an audience familiar with the game and it needs to be geared towards a newcomer (think me)
  • The very first sentence: "Wipeout 64 provides exactly the same weapons as Wipeout 2097" That's a big claim. I check the source, which says: "In addition, Wipeout 64 ups the ante with a wide selection of in-game weapons ... and newly added power weapons unique to each vehicle." That doesn't sound like the same. Citation needed
  • Tons of jargon in this first paragraph. Is it important that I know what a Plasma Bolt or Super Weapon is? Probably not. I want to know that vehicles go around tracks (what kinds of tracks and vehicles, briefly?), that they shoot missiles (perhaps homing? probably doesn't matter what "element" they are), and that they cloak and have something called energy drain (what the hell is energy and how is it drained?) This section needs to be written for "beginner's mind" and needs to mind its source cited
  • I only need to know that the weapon is called the "Cyclone" if it's going to be referenced later (if it's important). I probably don't need to know the game's names, just the major functions
  • The very first sentence of Development runs-on
  • That the load times are three to four seconds is (1) not in the source cited, (2) original research (if it's not in the source), and (3) probably not even necessary to include, as video game trivia
  • It would be nice to have more on Development—the actual process—but I'm assuming good faith that you looked. Perhaps ask WT:VG for some help sourcing the development across the series, if you're interested in expanding it
  • Like the other articles, a track listing likely isn't appropriate here
  • Music has several uncited sentences
  • "Metacritic gave the game a score of 84/101 - with an accompanying sense of surprise that Nintendo's hardware could present such high quality graphics and sound." What? I thought Metacritic gives aggregate reviews and nothing original? Also the score is out of 101? Also the first link is dead?
  • Up to this point, with factual errors as large as I've pointed out without digging too deep, I don't think this can pass GA any time soon without a rewrite. I'd also recommend to have the articles checked line-by-line for copy (copyediting) as well as facts (checking to make sure stuff's in the source cited as well as that the source is not a dead link)
  • There is excessive quoting in the Reception. Quoting is only used sparingly in articles—only where it is vital to put it in the author's own words. Many of these quotes can be easily paraphrased without losing any of their effect. Also "sound-affects" → sound effects
  • "Most reviews compare the game with F-Zero X which came out a month earlier, with the general feeling that while Nintendo's own futuristic racer offers more tracks and racing craft, Wipeout 64 has better track design and atmosphere." There are a number of grammar issues in this section, and for this sentence in particular—what a bold claim! I want to know more about this! But I can't because it isn't cited. Anything that a reader might find to be a bold claim should have direct citations so the reader can verify the claim. That's the basis of the citation policy
  • There are also a bunch of easy typos: "are hideous";.", "Wipeiout 64", etc.
  • Outside GAN scope: when using dashes to make parentheticals, use either the spaced en dash or the unspaced em dash (the MOS has more on this), GameRankings should only use two digits of precision

This article doesn't meet the GAN criteria and I'm not very confident that it can without rewriting most of the article (due to the fact-checking issues). I'll put it on hold for a few days for the benefit of the doubt (in case there is any response or clarification needed), but I think it'd be best to fail it for now. Between the multiple unsourced sections, the need for a copyedit, the factual incongruences, all of the stuff mentioned above, and the other articles at GAN (which also needed major structural fixes), I don't think even a week would be sufficient for this article's needs. Please give it your own GAN review and have it looked over by others before submitting it for a formal review, because all of the issues I've brought up could have easily been rectified before a GAN. czar ♔ 19:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review Czar, I'll get to addressing most of those problems soon as I'm going to currently prioritise my efforts on the first Wipeout. Maybe I was intoxicated when I wrote some parts of this article regarding the grammatical errors (a score 84/101!?). I'll fix the minor issues first and will re-write most of the article soon. By the way, has this GAN failed? I notice that it is still on hold? Thanks, ☠ Jaguar ☠ 20:26, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing, as discussed czar ♔ 16:44, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Wipeout 64/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AdrianGamer (talk · contribs) 13:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

Body

[edit]
  • At the time of the game's release developers Psygnosis had been owned for 5 years by Sony Computer Entertainment, for whose hardware all subsequent Wipeout games have been released exclusively. - should be developer only, no "s"
  • Wipeout series including analogue control (benefitting from the Nintendo 64's controller) - Personal opinion, but a bracket in lead don't look good.
  • the game received mixed to positive opinions from critics and players alike. - "mixed to positive" is vague.
  • many critics praised the game for its individuality, offering more tracks and racing craft, unique atmosphere and "superior track design". - I was expecting a noun after "individuality"
  • However, despite its praise the game was criticised for its slower frame rate and opinion - Should simply be slow frame rate.
  • Most aspects of the gameplay did not differ with the previous two titles. - Should be differ from instead of differ with
  • Wipeout is based in a futuristic anti-gravity setting - Based in refers to places. It should be based on.
  • where pilots would race each other or computer-controlled A.I - Personal opinion, but I will add "against" before each other
  • A.I., aerodynamics and split-screen multiplayer need to be wikilinked
  • This is what paved the way for the Eliminator mode introduced in Wipeout 3. - "is what" is not really necessary.
  • Wipeout 64 provides most of the same weapons as Wipeout 2097 along with new weapons unique to each team. - I personally think that "features" will be a better word than "provides".
  • The name of the weapons can also be wikilinked. Not everyone know what "plasma bolt" is after all.
  • The Designers Republic were not involved in designing the promotional material for Wipeout 64 (although they designed the successor, Wipeout 3). - Then why it is mentioned in the development section if they are not involved in this game?
  • They designed all promotional material for every Wipeout game except this one, but I now realise that this article should have a "beginner's mind" rather than be written for Wipeout veterans. Removed, despite development material being short enough as it is ☠ Jaguar ☠ 12:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • SCEE Studio Liverpool - Should be SCE Studio Liverpool only
  • IGN review of the game: "in case you're wondering why there is load-time in between levels: according to Psygnosis, the short break is needed for sound decompression." - Instead of using a direct quote, it should be paraphrased
  • Psygnosis also made the most of the Nintendo 64's analogue stick, utilising the analogue stick (rendering the D-Pad obsolete) - It made the most of the analogue stick and it utilize it sounds a bit redundant.
  • Psygnosis' in-game music team - Instead of in-game, it should be in-house.
  • czar removed the track listing, though I think that Wipeout is very music-orientated I would have kept it in but I do agree with his decision. Do you think it should be brought back? ☠ Jaguar ☠ 12:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The game received mixed to positive reviews and considerable praise from many critics. - Mixed to positive is also vague. It received considerable praise also sounds unnecessary and contradictory
  • 84/100 from MetaCritic - Metacritic, that C don't need to be capitalized.
  • Most reviews compared the game with F-Zero X which came out a month earlier - Personally, I think that "came out" sounds a bit informal.
  • Should be Gaming Age, not GamingAge
  • Popup and a slow frame-rate - Personal opinion, but I will add a hyphen in Popup. Framerate needed to be wikilinked
  • GameRankings score need to be round up to something like 87%
  • I look at the GA1 review, and find that "Wipeiout 64" is not addressed.

References

[edit]
  • Source 6 is unreliable
  • IGN, Metacritic, Kotaku and Nintendojo is filled in both work field and the publisher field. I personally think that if they are the same, only 1 of them is necessary, while another one can remain blank.
  • It seems that some sentences in the gameplay section and the music subsection is unsourced.

Review

[edit]

Overall it is a well-written article. However, there is some issues need to be addressed. I also found that the article is a bit confusing to read, and that the development section is really, a bit too short.
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and y:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

I will leave it on hold for a week, and if issues are addressed, the article to good to go. Good luck. AdrianGamer (talk) 06:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@AdrianGamer: thanks for the review! I think I have addressed everything. I've added some new references as well as removing some unreliable ones. I have addressed all of the prose issues and have also paraphrased some parts of the article. It's a shame that the development is too short but I can find virtually nothing on its development. There is, however, a great deal of information on previous titles but Wipeout 64 is not covered very well. I notice that Wipeout 3's development section is far too short for an FA. Anyway, please let me know what you think? ☠ Jaguar ☠ 13:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One more issue is that the second paragraph of the gameplay section needs one more source. If that is addressed I will promote the article. AdrianGamer (talk) 15:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
AdrianGamer I must have forgot that. I've added one new ref to the second paragraph and used another citation thathad the same information in the source ☠ Jaguar ☠ 15:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Article looks great now. Wipeout 64 promoted to . Congratulations. AdrianGamer (talk) 09:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This shouldn't have passed

[edit]

I don't think this should have passed for GA, there is a lot of use of "World of Nintendo" and that website seems to be unreliable as it accepts anonymous reviews. The website looks absolutely terrible too. I'll see if I can salvage the article and not need to go through a GAR. Luckily there are plenty of magazines out there that have a lot of coverage on Wipeout 64 archived on the internet.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 06:54, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wipeout_64&oldid=1206060898"