Talk:Ghostbusters (2007 game)

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.	CVG Portal
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the assessment scale.
CVG To-do: edit  Gaming Collaboration of the week: Baldur's Gate series Expand: New CVG Articles, Normality, Pac-Man World 2, Operation Flashpoint: Elite, Call of Juarez, Galactic Civilizations II: Dark Avatar, Ford Street Racing, Betrayal at Krondor CVG Peer Review: List of F-Zero titles, Kya: Dark Lineage, Wii Remote, Dynasty Warriors 4, The Sims 2, The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past, Kirby's Dream Land, Electronic sports, Fire Emblem, Dante (Devil May Cry), The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, Final Fantasy XII, Sonic the Hedgehog (16-bit), Classes in World of Warcraft Cleanup: Age of Mythology, Mario Kart: Double Dash!!, Betrayal at Krondor, List of Nintendo trademarks Merge: Deletions / Essential articles / Magazines Assess and Prioritise articles (Log)

[edit] Xbox 360?

This game isn't being released on Xbox 360, it merely says it was running on Xbox 360 prototypes. It's not a 360 game. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.193.207.63 (talk) 20:49, 22 January, 2007 (UTC)

Why would it be -announced to be- running on Xbox 360 prototypes (source?) if it isn't an Xbox 360 game? JackSparrow Ninja 21:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Considering Ghostbusters is owned by Sony it sure as hell isn't a 360 exclusive game and considering its all prototypes and demos that aren't licensed at all it shouldn't even have a page here. It should be deleted until its at least an official game and under a category for a console it might have a prayer of existing on.Darkwarriorblake 22:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

There are pages that seem to have less coroborating them... there hasn't been a 'Sorry... but we won't be able to continue the game' notice from ZootFly so I think it's worth keeping the article until it's beyond the shadow of doubt that it isn't gonna happen. -Kingpin1055 23:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Didn't say it wouldn't happen. Said it wouldn't happen on the 360 or not the 360 alone which means hte article needs a move.Darkwarriorblake 23:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree on the deletion, this "game" is nothing more than a concept demo and an attempt at securing the rights. Because the company does not currently hold the rights it is not official. Until it solidifies into something more than a concept demo it should not have it's own article. Draknfyre 21:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Via: http://www.joystiq.com/2007/02/03/dan-aykroyd-busts-out-ghostbusters-info/ "The Ghostbusters drama just keeps on coming as Dan Aykroyd himself (who starred in and wrote the original film) has revealed just what is going on with our favorite revived franchise. From Dr. Raymond Stantz himself: "Universal purchased the rights from Sony for a game. I'm actually going to have to perform and do some motion capture for them. That will be next year."

So now we know exactly why Sony had to drop the hammer on ZootFly and their Ghostbusters prototype. But why the sudden amount of interest in such an obscure property? It should be obvious by now that this is no mere coincidence. The moment the theme song itself resurfaced in a soon to be released Beatmania title, we knew something had to be up.

And that something is a new feature film. In yet another interview, Aykroyd reveals that not only is Ghostbusters III in production, but it's a computer animated film in which he lends his voice.

All that's left for this resurrection is some new toys and Ecto Cooler, because in 2007 Ghostbusters is all up in our grills, and we're loving it."--24.7.162.39 08:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Obscure property? "Ghostbusters" is about as obscure as the Space Shuttle, Nintendo, or Michael Jackson. The movie was one of the biggest hits of the 80's. Calling it "such an obscure property" is ridiculous. Draknfyre 00:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Delete?

I am sure that the demo movies were impressive, but if I were to draw a picture making the characters from Goonies into hard core treasure hunters then claim I am attempting to acquire the rights to make a hardcore Goonies game, all that gives me is... a picture with hard core goonies. This article is without merit and should be deleted. WookMuff 09:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Greetings, I take it that you have not researched the topic listed here. If you had, you would realize that they created more than a "picture" -- they created a playable game to showcase their in-house engine that they are using for their up coming IP called 'Timeo'. kmwatcha

Groovy. Of course, i never claimed that they only made a picture, but your issues are your own. This alleged game isn't mentioned on their site and as for "a playable game"? Says whom? I don't see any citations for this existing as anything more than some "leaked" demo movies. Furthermore, nothing in the cited ign.com article even MENTIONS that it is the ZootFly game that Dan Akroyd is talking about... in fact it implies the opposite. This page is pointless. Thank you for your time. Also, you might want to look up Wikipedia:Verifiability, just for kicks. WookMuff 09:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Until around the time that the 'copyright' messages appeared on the files uploaded to YouTube, the ZootFly site carried both a section on the front page talking about the raction as well as a compilation of all four movies. And true, there hasn't been a citation by Dan that he's talking about the same game... I find it a little bit hard to swallow that two Ghostbusters games have/are being worked on at the exact same time independently of each other. -Kingpin1055 18:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Luckily Kingpin1055 finds it hard to swallow isn't a wikipedia policy then. I don't find it at all hard to believe that someone was making an unauthorized game, stealing someones intellectual property, at the same time that a deal was being worked out between two massive corporations for that same intellectual property. If zootfly had the rights, it would be back up on their site. WookMuff 19:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

kmwatcha, "You have done nothing either way to relay as to why you believe the article should be removed" I believe I have made my point quite clearly. If you don't understand then... a) There is no veriable citations that this game is anything more that a demo movie and bad photoshopping, with a beat up by YOUTUBE-using ghostbusters fans, and b) Without that proof, this page is without point or merit. Furthermore, if you think I am trolling then go complain, because as far as I am concerned, accusing someone of trolling is about as personal attack as it comes. WookMuff 05:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Who on earth was talking about Wiki policy? I was just stating what I felt on the matter... that is what a discussion page is about. I don't think the article particularly warrents a delete... but that's me. It being retained for the moment wouldn't hurt anyone I figure... and I'd retain it until such a point that after a length of time and there's been no more updates then it'd be reasonable to assume either the game's a long way off or not happening. There's a fine line between 'stealing intellectual property' and using it to craft a concept game, they weren't exactly in a position to make any money from it at that moment. "An absense of proof is not proof of absense", they may not have had the licence rights but that doesn't automatically that they've been shut down by Sony and subjected to a lawsuit. I'd like to see something a bit more official then internet talk before saying "They got caught by Sony and got shut down". But that's my two cents. -Kingpin1055 11:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The fact that Universal has purchased the video game rights to Ghostbusters from Sony, that automatically disqualifies ZootFly from anything Ghosbusters-related as far as video games are concerned, and considering ZootFly is a video game company, I think that speaks for itself Draknfyre 23:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Here Here, or possibly Hear Hear, I have never been sure. Anyway, in hindsight the page probably doesn't need to be deleted, just changed to show that the project is now vapourware. If other vapourware (or vaporware in america) can have its own pages I suppose this is perfectly legitimate. WookMuff 00:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe that's a bit of a jump to a conclusion, possibly two... in fact. Firstly, the purchase of rights doesn't neccesarily exclude ZootFly, I'm aware that Universal has the ability to produce games but not specifically create them. That doesn't automatically rule out the idea of thm getting ZootFly to finish the game and then they sell it under their Vivendi (Or whatever the other one's called) title. It actually makes sense to a degree, why build your own when you can buy someone else's and have a chunk of the work already done?

Secondly, even if that is the case all of this is still really only speculation... we can't say that ZootFly is in or out until something official comes along and tells us so. -Kingpin1055 13:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The page on gamespot doesn't seem to imply there are two games in development, but one. http://www.gamespot.com/news/6165346.html?sid=6165346&action=convert&click=latestnews

--Iamstillhiro1112 19:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)