Talk:3D Monster Maze

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is undergoing a featured article review to ensure that it meets the standards of a featured article. Please add a comment to assist the process and/or be bold and improve the article directly. If the article has been moved from its initial review period to the Featured Article Removal Candidate (FARC) section, you may support or contest its removal. When the review is complete, a bot will update the article talk page.
Featured article star 3D Monster Maze is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
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.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article is on a subject of High priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
VG To-do:
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.5
 This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] Hardware requirements

I'm fairly sure this game Required the 16kb memory expansion to run, and so would not run on an off the shelf zx81?

Thank you for your interest in the article. I wasn't sure this was notable, hence I didn't include the 16K requirement, yet it appears in the "Golden oldies" reference:
That is a time of seemingly unending boredom but it is soon forgotten when play begins. 3D Monster Maze is essential for all owners of the 16K ZX-81.
If you have a good idea on how to stick this into the article, you're welcome to go ahead. BACbKA 19:05, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I have just found cassette inlay image, and 16KB ZX81 is stated. Seemed best to include it near the start where platform is stated. edit done
--born against 20:25, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Tentative inclusion into the FPS category

I have just created a non-conventional redirect page to point to this article. More details at my user page. Feedback welcome here or at my talk page. BACbKA 21:36, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I put the article in Category:First person adventures, so that redirect is no longer necessary. ~ Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 03:22, 2005 August 5 (UTC)
Seriously, quit moving to FPS, the article explicitly says it isn't one! ~ Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠
From the point of view of the current classification scheme of the wikipedia, you're right. However, you can yourself observe that some sources declare this game an FPS (as the article explicitly says) and this is why I thought it might be worth doing the tentative inclusion — apparently some folks' FPS definition is broader than ours. Personally, I agree with you, and think that the FPA inclusion is sufficient. If somebody else thinks that a tentative inclusion to the FPS is needed, let them speak up here; I'm not doing it myself again meanwhile. BACbKA 10:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Can't be a First Person Shooter without shooting, surely? On the other hand, I'd cast SERIOUS doubt on the "first" FPS being Wolfenstein 3D... first popular, Doom-styled, IBM PC compatible FPS perhaps, but I'd be amazed if there's nothing prior to it on any system that would count, I'm sure I've owned/played a few; discounting Dungeon Master (which featured 3D movement that was only slightly improved over 3DMM, sure (not that Wolf was too much more sophisticated - all right-angles, flat floors and windowless rooms, not even Doom's limited but convincing topology), but you *could* shoot/attack monsters, pick up food/items, press switches and otherwise interact with the environment, etc, and had a good visual range) and workalikes, and other candidates on non-PC 16 bit systems (which had a struggle coming up with enough power to do a decent rendition of a Wolf type game), I seem to remember an immediate precursor to W3D... with garish EGA colours (16 colour fixed palette...) no less! Think it was from the same studio, then it was polished up, given a historical link, VGA graphics and a decent backstory, and the rest is history. 82.46.180.56 (talk) 23:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
(Actually I just remembered what I was trying to call to mind. First person shooter, with a form of LAN play no less, from the late 80s? MIDIMaze much, ladies and gents? I own it, have played it lots, and can vouch for the copyright date not only on the title screen but printed on the disc and in the softback manual that came with) 82.46.180.56 (talk) 23:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Technology: the save entry point purpose

I began doubting my own words in the article. Maybe I misinterpreted the save entry point purpose. Could it be that this was the only way to make a saved program auto-run on zx81 (by saving from a running program), rather than a convenient back-up means? The SAVE "..." LINE ... was a Spectrum addition, there was no LINE at all on zx81... Please advise... BACbKA 17:33, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The save entry point was there to make the program auto-run, although it could be used as a convenient "backup" too, I suppose. All ZX81 programs ended with something like
1000 SAVE "GAME"
1010 GOTO 10
so the programmer would type GOTO 1000 to save the game (so that when loaded it would jump immediately to line 10, presumably the start of the program). An odd side-effect of this was that one of the characters in the name ("GAME") would switch to inverse video - the last character IIRC. This was a side-effect of how the ZX81 ROM parsed strings, and since it was in the middle of processing the statement when the game was saved, you'd see the (normally invisible) string parsing when the game was loaded. Richard W.M. Jones 11:50, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification! I've exacted the article accordingly. BACbKA 10:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ant attack moved off the article page

The article had included the following text:

One of the earliest 3D games for the ZX81's successor, the ZX Spectrum, was Quicksilva's 3D Ant Attack (1983).

I've removed it since the NGS' own Escape, a 3D title, dates back to 1982. BACbKA 22:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Featured article candidate?

Slap me if I'm wrong, but having seen no significant objections from the peer review (and having incorporated all the suggested ideas from there and the talk page), I'll risk nominating the article as a featured article candidate. According to the checklist, it looks OK to me, apart from the brilliancy of the prose which I can't judge objectively, esp. not being a native English speaker. BACbKA 20:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm gonna have to disagree with it's candidacy. I think the writing needs a lot of work. The grammar is sometimes poor and many of the sentences are a bit confusing. It does, however, have some really great information. --Polkapunk 15:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look. It would be great if you could help, as I am not a native English speaker. --BACbKA 18:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Glad to help:) --Polkapunk 23:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

BTW, it was autofailed a week ago. I'm fixing the template used here... --BACbKA 23:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some suggestions

Looks much better, here are some more suggestions:

  • Try merging paragraphs so that they are atleast three lines long.
  • The empty space in the Reviews section and right of the contents looks a bit awkward (wrong spelling i guess).
Is it better now? BACbKA 12:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Do you have any cheats/secret tricks/trivia to share?
Expanded a bit with the speed tuning info. Nothing more to share :-) BACbKA 12:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
A positive-sum strategy advice added. Score as you please :-) BACbKA 21:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I never played the game myself (is it just like Wolf3D which sucked?), but are there any levels, etc that can be discussed?
No levels, just the maze, as described. I never played W3D myself, so I can't compare. I did put in some reviews clippings in order to try seducing the folks like you into trying it out :-) BACbKA 12:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
3D Monster Maze was the most memorable game I ever played on a ZX81. However, that probably says more about the limited capabilities of the ZX81 than the game itself: still, if you happen to own a ZX81, I'd say it's must-have. I think I have a copy somewhere, though no idea whether the tape would even be readable today. Mark Grant 16:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Some amazingly useless facts like how much money they made will be useful if you can find them.
I'll try asking the NGS folks. I'm also trying to discover the current copyright status of the game, as it seems non-trivial, too. BACbKA 12:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Hope this helps! :) deeptrivia (talk) 23:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

It certainly does! thank you very much. BACbKA 12:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 1981 vs 1982

Stolen from User talk:Frodet:

Thank you for your 1981/1982 issue cleanup and for the other copyediting. Do you think the game should also be re-categorized as a 1982 video game, rather than 1981 as it currently is? BACbKA 18:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure. As you correctly further clarified, the game appeared to be finished in 1981. However, I usually use the year of first release because it is easier to verify. But I understand it was in "circulation" before it was commercially published, so I suppose the 1981 category is fine. --Frodet 20:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

This image would seem to show a J.K. Greye release date of 1981 http://www.rosemeyer.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/images/1981.JPG born against 14:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Amazing. I've rolled it back to 1981 in the article. Thank you! --BACbKA 15:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that there is any objection to the fact that the game was finished and copyright was claimed in 1981 (see also: ftp://ftp.worldofspectrum.org/pub/sinclair/zx81/games-inlays/MonsterMaze3D.jpg). However, I believe the ZX Microfair referenced in [1] was the second one, which was in January 1982. It was then subsequently released commercially by W.H.Smith. However, the only way we can be sure is to ask Malcolm Evans himself. :) User talk:Frodet
I see. So you mean that the 1981 on the cassette shown by born against is just the (C) year, and doesn't necessarily have to mean that the cassette was made back in 1981? I'm trying to talk to the Evans family via the NGS site, but the latency there is very long, they've got a lot of other things to do... To be on the safe side, I'll revert to your 1981/1982 variant then meanwhile. --BACbKA 19:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Some changes and Questions

I made some grammar and prose changes to the article, someone should probably check to make sure I didn't change any meanings or the tone. I wasn't able to do much with the Technology section as I know nothing about the game or the machine. Furthermore, some of the Technology section might be considered fancruft, but again, I'm not familiar enough with the material to know. I'm a bit confused by the last paragraph of the Game Overview section, particularly the "appeal" aspect of game over. I think someone who is familiar with the game should work on it. I also think it should be considered rearranging the order of the sections as they currently seem in order of least to most important. --Polkapunk 23:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I've changed back only the "by November" wording, as this is exactly what the referenced citation says. What exactly in the tech section gives the fancruft impression? I feel it is a pretty accurate compilation of the material available, but it's important to have the article give a smooth impression to non-ZX81 folks like you. As for the sections order, what would you like to see instead? Gameplay, then Tech, then History & landmark games, then Reviews? --BACbKA 00:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

There. Thanks go to you and to Sean. I've stuck with his ordering (History then Technology) at this time. Feel free to comment/change. --BACbKA 22:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tidying up before re-nomination

Moved over from User talk:BACbKA:

  • I took a look on the article, it looks a MUCH better now! I don't really have any suggestions, it all looks good to me. Has much potential on WP:FAC. — Wackymacs 16:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The article looks very good now, I'll read it thoroughly and make any necessary corrections (if needed). If all the pics are fair use (that's considered very important) then it may well be up for FA this time. -- Cugel 14:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to summarize the remaining issues here that might not yet be addressed, in a single checklist (as subsections here), and when everything is addressed, and everyone here feels so, we'll re-nominate. See also the archived FAC entry. --BACbKA 19:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, looks like I've put down all I knew of so far. Please comment... --BACbKA 22:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A scoring strategy advice

The rectangular course positive-sum scoring advice in the Gameplay section was inspired by the request from User:deeptrivia above in his suggestions. However, as I had pointed out on his talkpage yesterday, it kind of has begun to stick out. Currently in the Gameplay section (talking on scoring), it still borders on going directly against the recommendation in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Computer_and_video_games#Organization to remember not to include player's guide or walkthrough material, although it is probably legitimate because of the scoring context... Should it be left there? removed? more explicitly tied to scoring? moved to a new Trivia section in the end? --BACbKA 22:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2nd-person language

The same wikiproject also cautions against using 2nd-person language, in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Computer_and_video_games#Style. However, as I wrote at User_talk:Natalinasmpf#2nd-person_language_rewording_of_3D_Monster_Maze (after an IRC talk about the 2nd person language and helpful insights from that user, that lead me to rewording the other paragraph using the 2nd person language in the article [2]), the remaining use of the 2nd-person language is a bit tricky to change because it would then be in disharmony with the cited in-game messages:

Current text:

Points are awarded for each step made by the player any time the dinosaur is on an active hunt. Since the player runs faster then the beast, it is possible to accumulate a lot of points by running around in circles with the beast just a few steps behind. (This works the best if a large enough rectangular course with a wall straight ahead marking each turn is available. In such a case, you can just wait in the corner until the "Rex has seen you", verify which side of the corner he's coming from, and run away several steps along the other side. Rex will continue on to the corner (where he has seen you last), and see you again as soon as he reaches it. Meanwhile, you can run on to the next corner, and repeat the same trick). Points are also given upon successfully getting away through an exit and into another maze, thus collecting even more points playing there — until eaten.

--BACbKA 22:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

A possible 2nd->3rd person transposition (note the quoted in-game messages relating to the player still formulated in 2nd person):

Points are awarded for each step made by the player any time the dinosaur is on an active hunt. Since the player runs faster then the beast, it is possible to accumulate a lot of points by running around in circles with the beast just a few steps behind. (This works the best if a large enough rectangular course with a wall straight ahead marking each turn is available. In such a case, the player can just wait in the corner until getting the "Rex has seen you" mesage, verify which side of the corner the monster is coming from, and run away several steps along the other side. Rex will continue on to the corner (where he has seen the player last), and see him again as soon as he reaches it. Meanwhile, the player can run on to the next corner, and repeat the same trick). Points are also given upon successfully getting away through an exit and into another maze, thus collecting even more points playing there — until eaten.

Please comment on whether the transposed text sounds better, despite the disharmony between the outer text and the quoted messages, or whether the current one is fine. --BACbKA 17:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Personally I like the 3rd person variant better. More encyclopedic. -- Frodet 20:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd like at least one more opinion here, preferrably from a native speaker. Can anybody please step forward and help? --BACbKA 17:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the 3rd person variant sounds a lot better, and as Frodet said, more encyclopedic. One of my biggest pet peeves around here is 2nd person speech in an article. Good job :) — Ilyanep (Talk) 17:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, so be it. I'm now going to replace the 1st paragraph version with the 2nd one. If someone still has an idea as to how the disharmony of the in-message 2nd-person language vs. the outer text 3rd-person one could be smoothened, please go ahead and copyedit. --BACbKA 17:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the second variant (3rd-person) seems a lot better. "The player" is a bit repetitive, right enough, but even so, it's encyclopaedic this way. Nach0king 18:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More screenshots

In his objection to the original FAC nomination, User:Cugel said he'd "like to see more shots", and that the article was generally short. Since then it has grown, and, to my taste, due to the limited number of various views in the game, it probably doesn't make sense to overdo that, in order not to stretch the "fair use". Still, here are the ideas for the things to possibly add:

  • Search for a picturesque random maze with a "square" (rectangular free space), it looks really cool but is pretty rare.
  • The teeth screen, mentioned in the review "Lee's peek'n'poke". That is an easy one :-) It also mentions the sentence/appeal thing.
See Image:3D-monster-maze-eaten.png, now in the article.
  • Maybe a view of the BASIC source code listing, with the delay line in view and in the line editor buffer? (To illustrate the customization mentioned in the Tech). See also the usage of this image over at Sinclair BASIC.

thumbnail|Editing the busy-waiting loop to minimize the input wait in the game.

I've requested assistance with proper (C) tagging of this image over at Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags
  • The "ANYONE THERE?" suddenly appearing after the long long long load wait. And if we're talking about multimedia, an audio file generated from the tape, to illustrate the loading noise (not the whole 7 minutes, for sure :-) )
  • REX at various steps away. Maybe even make an animation out of these. Stretches the fair use IMHO, although I've seen such an animation somewhere on the net.
the animation as described above can be seen in the palm screen on the zx81/palm site (see the links) (later note, BACbKA 08:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC))
  • an animation of the exit

Please add ideas/vote for existing ones. I promise to make a static screenshot for anything that gets >=2 votes, but you can fire up the emulator and do it yourself before that :-) --BACbKA 19:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Great job! I feel that any of most of those are fine: The free-space maze, the teeth screen, REX. I'm not sure about the animations, though. As long as it's encycolpedic, anything goes. -- Frodet 20:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


(please add further subsections with known issues down here)

[edit] We did it!

Thanks to everybody who helped making this a featured article!!! (Background music from 3DMAZE playing ;-) ). --BACbKA 07:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] nach0king

It turns out that the Neverwinter Nights review by nach0king (see the article References) is written by our own User:nach0king (he's just told me via the talk page). :-) Small world... I'm not cross-referencing it off the main article page, however, to avoid self-referencing in WP. --BACbKA 12:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reference format change

I have just reverted a change in the references format by User:Circeus. If I understand correctly WP:CITE#How to cite sources, this should have been done by discussing it here first. --BACbKA 19:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Outside that procedural bit, do you have any actual reason to oppose the switch? Circeus 19:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I had actually spent quite some time selecting between the Harvard style and the one your script generates, back when I first inserted the formal citation references in the article, and found the Harvard references more appealing, as well as easier on the reader, especially when the article is printed. (Mostly in the cases when one's familiar with the reference context and doesn't look up the full citation --- author+year is easier to understand than an obscure number). However, I fully agree that the raised and smaller-size in-text citation handles would look better than full-size; if such hybrid of our two versions were possible, I'd love to switch to it (perhaps it requires some template/CSS magic with the existing toolset?) Maybe just for the online (non-print) versions? Unfortunately, Harvard references are explicitly required to be in the same font as the enclosing text, though.

One of the considerations I also used in the references style selection was that the article borders on the Computer Science field, where currently Harvard references are taking the field. Thus, per the first item of the WP:CITE guidelines, I decided to use this style as well as to "follow the established practice for the appropriate profession or discipline that the article is concerning (if available and unquestioned)." Perhaps you should try to persuade the folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games#Style to suggest a uniform references style for all computer games? To add to your position, I must say that neither of the example featured individual game articles they list there currently use Harvard references (but they're not uniform either). If there had been a single uniform style there, back when I selected the initial reference format for the present article, I would have stuck to it, of course (again as "the established practice").

I don't feel that the references format is a very big deal, however, and if the majority of the article contributors prefer your version, I will gladly welcome a switch (yielding my prerogative of "the first major contributor" mentioned in WP:CITE). It would also probably be easier for others to join your suggestion to change the style here if you could elaborate a bit more on why you prefer the footnote style over the Harvard references for this article (not just with a suggestion to tell you what possible reasons exist to oppose the change :-) ). --BACbKA 20:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I already don't like Harvard citation, with which many, many users will not be used to. Currently, harvard references, AFAICT, are also not the main reference technique (numbered footnotes are much more common) on wikipedia. Also, I find harvard references disruptive to the text flow.
There is actually a way to do harvard-like citations in <sup>,but right I can't remember how to do it, and won't bother with as I find it even more ridiculous than Harvard.
<ref> has a major advantage over the templates in that it doesn't require any complicated formatting templates or to make sure the notes are in order, correctly named etc. It also makes adding new notes a charm.
I admit it mostly boils down to a personal preference (user:William M. Connolley seems to particularly dislike the <ref> system), though I think the ref system is much less abstract than the template one. Circeus 20:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I myself am somewhat partial to the cite.php (<ref>) system, but if an author wants to use another system, that's fine with me. If it is decided to use the current system, you should switch from ref label/note label to ref/note since there are no multiple references to a footnote. This would change the linkback character from a to ^ and would look a lot better. --Pagrashtak 00:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I am hoping that the time will come when the citation and the references are done using a presentation-independent markup, and a single switch of a user preferences would produce either style (like Latex/bibtex). The fact that currently I have to manually clone the note labels of the same references per each new Harvard reference citing it, is ugly. However, since I don't have a patch to give to mediawiki, I am doing it manually meanwhile :-) BTW, same about the references division relative size (that you've just added) --- this is clearly something that belongs in the CSS; we should just be marking the References and/or External links section as such, and the CSS should shrink them IF AND WHEN the user preferences have that selected. This is probably an easier thing to do than the automatic citation markup/scheme selection; but I still don't volunteer to take its implementation :-) so I'm leaving your added font-size attrib. as is... --BACbKA 10:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

P.S. BTW, to add to my point, I've just looked up some other articles with the references section; some don't have it shrunk at all, and some do have it shrunk to 90%, and some --- to 85% :-) just another argument for a uniform CSS-based treatment... --BACbKA 10:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

P.P.S. Whoever reads this, should probably take a look at discussion on the references section font size, over at the WP:FAC talk. --BACbKA 16:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I just reverted the reference format change yet again --- I guess the editors that did it missed this section in the talk page before doing that... Such style changes on a FA definitely benefit a discussion before going ahead. --BACbKA 20:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not the one who switched the refs over, but I think that's a discussion worth having since (as I mentioned on your talk page a while ago) the links in the current style don't work under Firefox, or at least some configurations of Firefox. Pagrashtak 15:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... I just retested it again with several versions on Linux, and it works perfectly, so you still haven't convince me. Moreover, since the last time I noticed the templates are highlighting the anchor in the ref list (like the a letter) when you jump to it. So if you still have a reproducible case of the bug, please raise it up with the harvard linking templates authors, and they'll hopefully fix it.

On a completely unrelated note, thank you very much for the "Impact" section rewording! It really shines now, and is much better w/o the "Main" template and the weasel/original-research-ish wording that was there. (The previous wording made more sense in the context of the challenges posed during the review/nomination, as an answer, but was much more strange out of that context. Now, having not looked at the whole thing for a while, I find it much more obvious.) Thanks again! --BACbKA 10:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

There's some discussion about it not working if one has popups in one's monobook.js, so that might be my problem. Glad you like the change, it's always nice to be appreciated. Pagrashtak 17:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article in Edge Magazine April 06 issue

Perhaps worth mentioning as part of critical acclaim, but in this months Edge Magazine UK, there is a large article (2-3 pages) regarding 3dMM (the 2 games recieving a retrospective this month are 3dMM and Radiant Silvergun :), I've yet to get chance to double check the info there with the details in this article. born against 11:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

It would be cool if you could comb that article for any additional technical/commercial/whatever facts about the game. (Copies sold, assembler or direct code programming, 3D engine details, domestic vs overseas, etc....) Same applies to any other non-referenced issues here, such as the retrogamer article. --BACbKA 12:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Cool article indeed! We now have a link to the online version of that article, currently in the Links section. I've just exacted the assembler vs direct code issue in the article text, and am waiting for the author name confirmation to make it a formal reference just like all our other sources. --BACbKA 19:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ZX81 over Spectrum emulation

A recent edit added the following text to the link to the ZX81/Spectrum emulator:

This ZX81 emulator was solely written to run '3D Monster Maze' on a ZX Spectrum. The fact that other games run as well is bonus! The emulator was written on a ZX Spectrum with the goal to run it on a SAM Coupé. Later the screenroutines from this emulator were copied to the SAM Coupé, creating SAM81 : The ZX81 emulator for the SAM Coupé. Now '3D Monster Maze' could be played on a SAM Coupé too.

I'm moving it to the talk page as it fattens the link annotation, talks about intentions/goals of the author w/o references to sources (the docs inside the version I had once tried didn't tell me that, but maybe I forgot smth; most likely it's possible to find a reference on a sinclair forum/newsgroup/mailing list) and IMHO puts too strong emphasis on the emulator itself distracting from the 3DMAZE. It also sounds a bit unencyclopaedic to my taste (especially the bonus sentence). If 3DMAZE can be confirmed to be the sole purpose of writing the emulator, that should be added to the article, the other text is superfluous IMHO. What do you folks think? --BACbKA 11:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] See also

I feel that the current "See also" section is a bit sticking out of the main flow -- first, it doesn't connect at all to the remainder of the article, and, second, it picks the Dungeons of Daggorath game rather arbitrarily from other post-3DMAZE games, even out of those listed in History of computer and video games#The 1980s.

I thought that the "See also" section was about listing related stuff not already connected in the article. The obvious reason why Dungeons of Daggorath is listed is because it's the "runner up" so to speak, in the first person genre. --Frodet 16:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
My point is that, indeed, the impression that the secion makes is that that game is a runner up, but there is no substantial references backing the fact that there was nothing in between. Now, there are no lies anyway here on the 3DMAZE -- if all we have is a "see also" without any claim that DoD is the runner up, it's fine, but I do feel that this inclusion of just that game amounts to almost saying that. It is for that reason I'm saying that either a definitive claim about being a runner up (with substantiating) should be added into Impact, or other games mentioned along with DoD to dilute the impression of DoD being the "next" 3D game. If I understand correctly from the DoD article and its mention in the history... article, it seems that DoD was the first to use color with 3D -- if we can get a reference backing that, maybe this would be a nice thing to have in the Impact section. In any case, this would eliminate the "see also" which feels kind of blunt to me as it is. what do you think? --BACbKA 08:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I see what you mean. Unfortunately I have not been able to find any references which place DoD after 3D with nothing in between. Also, I believe Dod actually does not use colour for the main action, however, it does use wire frame, that might be a first? --Frodet 14:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I propose eliminating the See also section as it is, since the "Impact" section already incorporates the History... article by reference stating it's the main article for that section. Does anybody disagree with that?

I have no strong feeling either way. :) --Frodet 16:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

In addition, if somebody feels it is appropriate, we might want to blend into the Impact section 1) all the other 3D games mentioned in the '80s above 2) pick up notable representatives of the Sinclair 3D gaming scene and mention them there. However, I am unsure this would be useful unless clear link to 3DMAZE and prior PC 3D gaming art is given along with every such game, hence I am not going ahead doing this myself. --BACbKA 09:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure 1) is relevant since this is an article about 3D Monster Maze and not about "...all the other 3D games...". 2) Is perhaps more relevant, especially New Generation Software's contributions as well as those who can be quoted as "being inspired by" or some such. ¨--Frodet 16:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
My problem here is that at that time people didn't quite often say what inspired them when they wrote the new games :-( --BACbKA 08:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Exactly my point - it will be hard to find references, but without there is very little to be made from it. "Potential inspirational sources..."? :-) --Frodet 14:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Importance

I just noticed that no importance has been set for the {{cvgproj}} template. At first I was inclided to list it as Mid, but after some contemplation I am now tempted to list it as High or even Top seeing that e.g. Sims 2 is listed as High. Any thoughts? --Frodet 16:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

No lower than Sims 2, IMHO :-) High sounds fine. However, I'm unsure if this does anything except rating collaboration priorities within cvgproj on the unfinished aspects of an article, whereupon an FA-class one is supposed to be mostly stable anyway... --BACbKA 15:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I belive it is also used as a criteria for selection for Wikipedia releases, but I can't find any references for that now..... --Frodet 18:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Happy 25th anniversary!

Sometimes during this November, the 3DMAZE turned 25 (since its completion, not the release). Perhaps somebody should nominate it for the front page, although there's such a big backlog there that it will hardly make it on time... --BACbKA 10:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

It'd be really nice to see this on the front page, given the huge amount of time and effort you've put in to making it. Richard W.M. Jones 16:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link removal

I removed this link because it goes to a site whose sole purpose is to sell things, which falls under WP:EL, Links normally to be avoided number 4: "Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services." None of the information in that link goes beyond what's already in the WP article. I removed this link because it's dead. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 15:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a pity that the second link went dead. The reason it was there in the article was to augment the statement about serving as an inspiration of the emulator scenes. As for the first link, it is there as it seemed to be the only one providing the game cover of the NGS edition, and it's interesting to compare the two in the context of the talk of how the NGS was formed and how 3DMAZE was re-released. The "normally to be avoided" doesn't mean "absolutely unacceptable", and note that the link annotation did mention the commercial nature of the link. Note that the article passed the FA review with the link in! I suggest putting it back until a reliable other source of the same cover is found. What do you think? --BACbKA 19:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I have just pinged the dead link owner, hopefully his email isn't dead as well... Maybe he's got some alternative hosting that hasn't got indexed into google yet, given the pervasiveness of the old (dead) link in various catalogues... --BACbKA 12:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
OOPS, it did bounce... --BACbKA 20:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I found the newer location online following Stephen's posting in news:comp.sys.sinclair. I have also restored the first link given the above explanation of relevance. I concur with you that commercial links are to be discouraged, and call to everybody to replace the link at the 1st possible convenience with a non-commercial link that leads to the NGS-edition game cover as soon as it's found. --BACbKA 08:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)