Talk:Pro Evolution Soccer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pro Evolution Soccer article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
Famicom style controller 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.
Portal:CVG
 CVG Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
This article is supported by the Konami task force.
CVG To-do:

Contents

[edit] Pro 6's own page

I think it is fair to say that Pro6 will be one of the biggest sports game this year... and it is just a footnote at the bottom of this page... I think it needs to be made seperate so more detail can go into it (the loss of licensing with germany/chelsea, glitches, changes ect). Once the game is played more I am sure people will have alot more to say about it. Consider it... ALSO this discussion page is a mess! sign comments everyone! (RuSTy1989 22:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Redirects, other edits

There is no point on adding different articles for each PES/WE game coming out, so the PES3 and PES4 articles now redirect here. There are somethings missing now, which I'll try to complete as soon as possible including...

  • Master League
  • games Before WE4
  • Improving individual parts of each game.

\ wolfenSilva / 12:39, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There is already is PES5 page what about that?

[edit] Winning Eleven

  • It's important to explain for young and new players about Winning Eleven japanese: It's the major base for all others games, includes PES, International versions, etc.
I feel that both PES and WE should be merged. They ARE the same game

Well, actually no. There comes a Japanes WE first. Then in October/November there comes PES. Then in Jnauary of the next year there comes a WE:PES edition and that is the same game.: Fireball00 20:32 (CEST)

[edit] Updating

new versions of the game released in america for PSP/PS2, also, itd be nice to get a summary of the "tactics" games.

[edit] Engine

I'd like to see more info on the engine this game uses, because after the install there are very few files and there are only 5 files in the "dat" folder which contain 1.14 GB, so I am just more curious on the engine this game uses, also more info on why it takes quite a good video card to make it run properly, is this perhaps because it uses old technology? i think so. - Raul 06:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "assault" on FIFA, sources lacking

The article said: "The final assault on EA Sports' FIFA Series crown was with the 2002 top-selling title Pro Evolution Soccer 2, based on Winning Eleven 6."

The two series were already in competition and still are, so the expression "The final assault" is someone's POV, unless Konami or the developers described the gameas such, and either way it's a bit of a pompous description. If it was the first one to out-sell a FIFA game or come close to, which is what this seems to imply, then this should be stated and backed up with a source. I've removed the above for now.

Several other things in the article seem to just be the authors' opinions, so the following things need a source to back up their claims:

  • "The game is held in high acclaim by the gaming press"
    • Added GameRankings as a source - PES has consistently high press ratings according to it. B'man 20:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The game "sells well": which versions does this apply to? How well do they sell? In which countries? Does it outsell FIFA and if so how long has it done so for?
    • As far as I know PES has never outsold FIFA. However, it is does sell well. In 2005 PES5 was the second highest-selling game in the UK, behind FIFA 06, according to ELSPA. B'man 20:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • "The game is considered to have a very steep learning curve": has this been said in any reviews?
  • "The PC version required top-quality hardware": what were the required specs that were very 'top quality' at the time? In my experience the only big hardware constraint is the graphics card, otherwise a 4 year old PC should have no problems with PES4 at least, I think PES3 would be similar.
    • I remember PES3 on PC (Athlon XP 2600+, 1GB DDR1, ATI Radeon 9800SE w/ 128MB RAM - the graphics card cost £200 in 2003) being very, very slow (somewhere around 15fps) at 640x480 and normal quality settings, in the same way that Metal Gear Solid 2 Substance needs a very low resolution and almost all of the quality settings floored to run even at 30fps in a top-end PC from 4-or-so years ago. Konami's PS2->PC ports were abysmal at that time. I don't know about PES4 so I can't compare, but if you ask me (and I didn't write the original comment ;p) it did require a top-spec PC. B'man 19:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Other POV comments suh as

    • "[PES4] did not improve greatly over PES3"
    • "The game [PES3] fixed most parts of the previous game that needing tweaking"

probably shouldn't be there at all since they're just an opinion. If a lot of fans agreed about something like this then it could be said "many argue that..." but it should still have a source. I don't think the first point is concensus among fans in any case. I'll try and track down some sources for these but help would be appreciated. Jimbow25 13:59, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Latest revision

This is the first time I have come across this article, and read it in depth, and the "future games" section seemed to have some information that was not only out of place, but perhaps POV. That is, the latest revision of the article. Whilst some of the things stated that perhaps do have some basis in the game, the vast majority of it is POV/irrelevant. And besides, it's in the wrong section. I would revert that now, but it's perhaps a bit too late, and I'd end up accidentally vandalising the article or something, knowing me. Perhaps someone else can do it instead, or at least reword it? --194.247.231.8 03:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Criticisms" Revision

This can be found about halfway down the page:

"If the pass (including through ball passes) that is made is parallel to the run of the receiver of the ball, the player will jump over the ball automatically. This is rarely beneficial and usually results in balls going out of play or possession conceded. This happens because the step-over button (R2) has been pressed. Not pressing this will stop this occuring."

This isn't true; when I tried it out, I definitely didn't press the R2 button when the 'jump over' occurred.

its true, i tried to play the ball to the wing and for no reason the guy jumped it and nit was a throw in conceded

        • This article is incredibly biased rather than stating what have been known as flaws it tries to say these dnt exist which is surely presenting one person opinion!? how can you flag this up for discussion?

[edit] Special Features

Is the 'special features' section really needed? It doesn't teach people anything worth knowing, it's too anal and applies only to people who already play the game consistently. It reads like a tips section from a games magazine aimed at 14 year olds. Not really suitable for inclusion.

  • I agree, much of this is not needed. I've removed the section on unofficial challenges which are not "special features", what some people have chosen to do to extend the lifespan of games, unless it's something widespread that covers more than one game like speedruns, is not worthy of note on this page. The comment about the master league players' names being real famous people is more like trivia so I've put that under a "trivia" heading. If the section is worth keeping at all it needs some pruningJimbow25 13:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poorly written page in general

Very un-encyclopaedic page. The standard of writing is amateur and content is jumbled. The amount of criticism was ridiculous and wholly inappropriate. This page has been used as an excuse to fuel the FIFA vs. PES war. Full of opinions, not facts. Numerous citations needed.--Mr.bonus 14:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

agreed, was going to tag as advert, but not sure if I should, given that it's such a well-developed article (so many people have edited and not tagged as advert, who am I to argue?) --User24 21:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

The criticism section is very poor, consisting of scores of unproven minor 'flaws'. Even if some of them exist, an encyclopaedia is not the place to relate or ponder them. If someone wants to sort through and include RELEVANT criticism, fine, as long as sources are cited. DO NOT re-list the criticism section in its entirety.--Mr.bonus 14:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lots of little NPOV, verifiability edits needed

I started to work on this article but have been called to a meeting. The overall tone is not especially POV, but their are lots of opinions and weasel words and weasel phrases. "It has been criticized" -- Ok, by whom? I've seen much worse, but someone needs to go through and tighten this stuff line by line. Another example is speculation I tagged about the next teams to be included -- may be true, may be interesting, but it needs a verifiable reference (a comment on the talk page would suffice). I think it should not take a lot of time to make these many little changes if the editor is knowledgeable on this game.--A. B. 13:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment in wrong place

User 217.42.169.70 put the following paragraph in the middle of my comment above, I'm sure such a worthwihle comment shouldn't be removed so here it is again:

When I was young everyone played FIFA, we loved it, but then Pro Ev came along and now everyone is creaming over it. I will never play it, i refuse, why can't we all play FIFA instead. Sure FIFa may be like my genitalia, it is cheesy and looks the same year after year, but if you get a flavour for it, you just have to come back for more.

why should we play FIFA, the only people who buy FIFA nowadays is 10-year-olds who think its amazing because of all the teams and names. ProEvo rules, it is far superior to FIFA and that is why more and more people are turning to ProEvo nowadays! 81.153.12.87 19:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV, sources etc

Thanks to B'man for addressing some of the points I brought up a few months ago, the number of unsourced statements seem to be less and in places this article is much improved, though it seems to take a backwards step in other places as well. I've added 2 linked references, but more are needed. My main complaints about the recurring problems with this article are:

  • Information which is worth keeping in the article but is loaded with weasel words or POV remarks, such has: "Konami have somewhat sensibly resisted the urge for a Winning Eleven: Eleven and instead opted for what has to be one of the longest sports title names this year - Winning Eleven: Pro Evolution Soccer 2007." (emphasis mine). These have no place in an encyclopedic article. When it comes to upcoming releases the most important thing is to include the facts, your own feelings about the title don't belong in the article. Also "For the first time, the Xbox 360 will inherit the Pro-Evo legacy"- Yuck, yuck, yuck.
  • Again the unsourced statements, especially relating to upcoming releases- a lot of people will look at an article like this for news of future games so it's especially important that the news is accurate and sourced. I've removed the detail about new countries to be included in Pro Evo 6 (commented on by A. B. above) since it was unsourced speculation and in part just a list of possible teams. If Konami have announced which 5 new teams will be/are likely to be included, please list them but also provide a source. Jimbow25 13:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vinnygoal

why was the information about the coloquial term "vinnygoal" removed? as it is trivia relating to pro ev and a valid fact. Mr. patterson 13:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tidy up needed?

I was thinking about trying to tidy up and bring together the ISS, Pro Evo and Winning Eleven pages - and their various offshoots - in one article, tracing a more encyclopaedic history of Konami's football games; it strikes me that with different titles and companies producing different games, things are a bit messy! Then perhaps the short paragraphs for each game featured could be retained as individual pages which the main article could link to? Any thoughts? Ezy Rider 13:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

  • That would be terrific. I'm personally a bit confused how all those series relate to each other. --Mika1h 21:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/r/o/Talk%7EPro_Evolution_Soccer_9fe2.html"