Talk:Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing article.
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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article is on a subject of mid priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
This article has an archived VG peer review that may contain ideas for improvement.
VG To-do:
Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: October 11, 2006
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on January 4, 2005. The result of the discussion was keep.

For a January 2005 deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Big rigs:over the road racing

Has anybody else considered that tis game was released this way purposefully? If you think about it, it's great way to gain fame; Despite how horrifyingly bad it is, it's well-known on the internet. Perhaps that could be worked in somewhere. E946 07:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Pure and absolute speculation.--Drat (Talk) 09:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

This article should be renamed "Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing" if it survives VfD. iMeowbot~Mw 00:24, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] The Game was a scam

I strongly believe this game was a cheap and low scam to get money, this game was obviously not done. yet they released it anyway... And it has nothing to do with racing, it's you driving. that's it. You have an opponent, but the car never moves. and you can drive through any obstacle. When you "win" a "race" the screen says You're Winner! which is grammatically incorrect. And the game has no sound. This game was a big fat SCAM!24.128.186.205 20:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You obviously just don't know how to play it.

It was indeed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiFanatic777 (talk • contribs) 06:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Game was not a scam

I loved how this game was designed. From the no hassle interface and objectives, it allows you to do what you want however you want. There's no limits, no boundaries, this may not have been a traditional game but it sure was beautiful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 99.246.230.245 (talk) 11:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

Grand theft auto series has this concept too, you can make anything you want or make the objetives, you choose.

Yes, and the best thing is: GTA actually works! - 84.27.224.189 15:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV check tag

I looked and looked and looked and didn't find anyone who had anything at all nice to say about this game. If positive commentary has been seen in the wild, including it here would be nice. iMeowbot~Mw 01:08, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Actually, there has been positive commentary about the game, but it's all metaphysical gibberish, complete idiots, or people who can't tell a good game from a hole in the ground. Search Metacritic.com for this game, and you will quickly find this to be true.Davidizer13 17:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Not to in any way claim that I was responsible, but I emailed Metacritic to make sure they would have a score for the game. Originally, it was one review short of having an official Metacritc score, but then I pointed out that X-Play did (technically) review the game by calling it the worst game ever made. -- Kicking222 00:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
      • This article is very biased. All it does is point out the shortcomings in the game. Just because whoever edited the page doesn't like the game doesn't mean that that's supposed to automatically make his/her opinion fact. Some people enjoy this game. I, personally, think it has great humorous value. Also, the controls are adequate, as are the graphics (which for some reason get universal hate, even though the textures are perfectly fine for a low budget game released in 2003). The article, on various occasions, calls the game "bad" as if it were fact. I can't believe the people who think this is not biased. IT IS. Your opinion on whether you like Big Rigs or not is irrelevant. 190.30.152.151 21:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
        • To call it even slightly good would be a blatant lie and against what Wikipedia stands for. Furthermore, don't you suppose that if dozens of game revieuwers, sites and other sources say it really is the worst, it might be true? - 84.27.224.189 15:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
          • I know I'm bringing up an old discussion here, but to call the game even slightly good would in no way be a blatant lie. The reasons people give for saying the game is bad are not fact at all, they're all opinion. For example, "You can drive through anything so it sucks" is not fact because there is no official guideline that states a game must prevent the player from driving through everything in order to be good. It's purely a matter of personal taste. This does not affect the article in any way, the article is sufficient.--85.211.101.178 (talk) 10:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GameMill's parent company

No, I'm not kidding, Big Rigs is distributed by a little storage shed and truck rental outfit in Minnesota. GameMill Publishing and its co-brand Educational Initiatives Group are:

Domain Name.......... gamemillpublishing.com
 Creation Date........ 2004-02-23
 Registration Date.... 2004-02-23
 Expiry Date.......... 2006-02-23
 Organisation Name.... Edu. Initiatives
 Organisation Address. 22595 Pillsbury Avenue
 Organisation Address.
 Organisation Address. Lakeville
 Organisation Address. 55044



 Organisation Address. MN
 Organisation Address. UNITED STATES

Admin Name........... Gary Miller
 Admin Address........ 22595 Pillsbury Avenue
 Admin Address........
 Admin Address........ Lakeville
 Admin Address........ 55044
 Admin Address........ MN
 Admin Address........ UNITED STATES
 Admin Email.......... GameMill@Frontiernet.net
 Admin Phone.......... 952-985-7545
 Admin Fax............

So what does that have to do with truck rentals and storage sheds? Google for 22595 pillsbury, and we get Lake Marion Storage. Same building, different people? Nope! Gary Miller again.

Registrant Info:
  Lake Marion Storage
  Gary Miller
  22595 Pillsbury Avenue
  Lakeville, MN 55044
  US
  Phone: 9529857545
  Fax..: 9529855763
  Email: LMStorage@aol.com

Note that the phone number is the same too.

The connection is that these folks are about 10 miles down the road from the Activision Value offices. This must be how Activision unloads old stock. --iMb~Meow 20:52, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What the?

There is a page of it in the Chinese Wikipedia and a link to it is there,but someone removed it? For what? Just put that link back!

From checking the history. Someone after you vandalized the page and it was RVed too far back. lots of issues | leave me a message 00:15, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] An explanation

http://hocuspocus.penguinia.net/overtheroad.htm I worked for quite a while doing research, and this is what I came up with. Contains stuff about the Big Rigs sequel, as well as left behind files and an explanation why the game is crap. ShadowMan1od 02:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The BROTRRers

Although different gaming websites gave Big Rigs unusually harsh/negative reviews, the current Wiki article makes no mention of the BROTRRers (Acronym from the game). With over fifty members and three different fansites, the BROTRRerhood and the Rigists (followers of Rigism, a religion created from the game) need to be mentioned in the main article (not just in the links at the bottom of the page) because otherwise it would not be fair for people that have different point of views on this game. Since Big Rigs came out about two years ago, it is safe to assume that the BROTRRers are fans of the game, and that this is not just temporary. HitokiriFelix- That's right!

Well, I added a "cult section" a few days ago, and some other people have polished it up. Hbdragon88 04:10, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Yourewinner.com now has over 190 members, who all call themselves BROTRRers. This is a big enough group, surely, to justify putting them in this article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cream147 (talk • contribs)

190 is nowhere near enough to justify that kind of thing. Even with 19,000, they'd need some sort of reliable, verifiable, non-trivial third party coverage.--Drat (Talk) 22:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


WHO COULD LIKE THIS PIECE OF CRAP?!24.128.186.205 20:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC) 'People who think this game is funny. I've never played it before, but watching Alex Nevarro and various videos of its gameplay, it certainly does have some laughing points. Farslayer (talk) 10:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This is turning into an excellent article - lets keep it that way

Excellent flow and information. Just don't turn this into an extension of the GameFAQs thread. The cult section is a fair size for covering a small group of enthusiasts. lots of issues | leave me a message 07:58, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

To my surprise, this article was both informative and amusing. It totally are winner.


[edit] Original Product?

I highly doubt the factual accuracy of the section titled "Original Product." This section is based off of the opinion of one web page. I suggest removal. thelistman

I spent about 2-3 hours researching. The thing about it being an "early release" is based on assumptions, but all the "Midnight Race Club" images, vehicles, and other leftovers were found in the retail version of the game. I also verified this by finding screenshots of the final version. Might need a bit of revising, but the fact that the game was intended to be Midnight Race Club and shipped with the big rigs working is true. ShadowMan1od 22:49, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Let me see some of the evidence that suggests this. Because I cannot find anything about this other than one page. That is the extent of the evidene I've seen. thelistman

Well, most of the information, I percieve, are on Russian gaming sites. Anyone can with an online translator can easily find news or reviews about it. It seems that much of the Western world doesn't pay much attention to Russian games. - XX55XX

[edit] "YOU'RE WINNER"

I am aware that "YOU'RE WINNER" is grammatically incorrect, but I don't think that needs to be pointed out. I'm sure that anyone with a basic grasp of English would be aware of this.

Bugger off. 72.144.60.229 03:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Okay, fine.

Okay, I'm sorry if you feel that I've "vandalized" your page, but try to see it my way. I live by the RIGIST principles set forth by STELLAR STONE, seeing you call BIG RIGS the "worst game ever" is like walking into a mosque and calling allah the "worst god ever."

Basically, your page is very offensive, and I was annoyed. Now you spread your message of hate by showing that you don't even consider RIGtopians to be a race, our culture is zillions of years old and I don't need your prejudice added to the strugle of my people. If you're interested in making your page politically correct, you can fix it by:

Not calling big rigs the worst ANYTHING ever, that's the opinion of hate groups, it doesn't belong on wiki. Also, you shouldn't trivialize it by calling it a "game."

Another thing is that you've got to stop calling RIGISM a cult. It's a philosopy, not a cult, and we wouldn't have anything to do with cults anyway because the supreme council has declared them LOSER.

Another thing you should remove is the Alex Navarro links, that's like me going to the Christianity boards and linking to satanic websites.

If these demands are not met, I'm afraid it will be very hard to avoid open war on Wikipedia. That means that the big rigs army will hunt down the editors, overthrow their tyrannical rule, and set up a new RIG-friendly government.

If you need any help making this page more WINNER, I will be glad to help. I'll be adding a section on the code of WINNER and of course a section on the three-handled tropy of WINNER when I have the time, just please be patient, and don't go letting your anti-rigite tendencies get in the way of making wikipedia a better place.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 167.206.52.67 (talk • contribs) .

We are NOT calling it the worst game ever. That's an opinion. We are saying that it has been rated the worst ever by numerous professional publications. That's a fact, and can be verified by reading those publications. On top of that, the edits you make regarding Rigism are not sourced, which means they can be removed at any time, even if they weren't so obviously made-up. If you would like to write something sensible about Rigism, please remember to use reliable sources.--Drat (Talk) 14:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, fine, I get that. The thing is, I don't see you linking to KKK sites that call being Jewish the worst religion ever..—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 167.206.52.67 (talk • contribs) .

Considering the average hate site would not be considered a reliable source, that's not surprising. Now could you please just quit this fake religion BS?--Drat (Talk) 15:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

it's not a fake religion!! We have a website!! It's way better than scientology and crap like that!-—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 167.206.52.67 (talk • contribs) .

Having a website does not, by itself, make it legit.--Drat (Talk) 15:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey Drat, the addition information was winner. No need to edit it out. It would have been a winner end to the article on the best game ever made. CyberRaptor 13:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I see we have a vandal with a sense of humour. Either that or the most delusional individual I've ever seen... Either way, it made me laugh but this article should stick to verifiable opinions. Have you considered making an entry for this in WP:BJAODN? --Tjstrf 23:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Just another note, superiority to Scientology doesn't imply legitimacy either. 69.59.108.79 04:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pack it in

Your stupid joke is going too far, as he said stick to verifiable opinions. Wikipedia is a factual website, not a biased one.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Deepdreamer (talk • contribs) .


I'm not trying to vandalize or joke. Let me try a more diplomatic way, do you think it's possible to cast Big Rigs in a more positive light?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 167.206.52.67 (talk • contribs) .

There has to be a positive light to cast. Do you have one? It must be reliable and verifiable. Good luck, you'll need it.--Drat (Talk) 13:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here to provide an unbiased article in the sense of never portraying anything as positive or negative, it is here to provide an unbiased article in that it is an accurate representation of the opinions of other official sources. If the only verifiable sources in existance portray the subject in a certain manner, then the verifiable NPOV on the subject is that view. In some articles, this means we have biographies filled with political correctness and praise but no criticism because those are the only verifiable sources on the person in question, in this article it means we represent it as one of the Worst Games of All Time. If you can get a mainstream, non-blog game website to publish an article in which Big Rigs is portrayed positively, then we will be able to fairly include that view. As is, pretty much the best we can do is state that a tiny minority of gamers think the game is so bad that it passes into a type of absurdist humour. --Tjstrf 15:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Very well, I'll get to work on that.

and deepdreamer is a known anti-rigite he should be banned from this site.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 167.206.52.67 (talk

You do that. If you can find those sources then we can make the article less negative. However, the fact will remain that the primary claim to fame this article has IS that it was considered the worst game of the year/all time by many people. There is additionally no way deepdreamer should be banned for his actions, and even if he were an "anti-rigite," whatever the hell that means (Doesn't like the game?) we don't ban people for holding opinions, we ban them for vandalizing pages repeatedly and sometimes for being trolls. Have you read the Wikipedia rules on Wikipedia:Patent nonsense, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view? Essentially, they say don't write total rubbish, if you are going to write something that other people will think is total rubbish it needs backed up with real sources, and don't contribute to articles you have strong feelings about. --Tjstrf 16:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It means he's a known troll on the big rigs forums, and okay, I'll take your advice. I'm sorry if I came across as a vandal, that was never my intention. I simply wanted to help your website become more WINNER.

[edit] Okay, I've done it.

I made some edits to the Rigism section, and they fixed some errors I noticed. For one, BROTRRers aren't followers of any religion, that's Rigists. BROTRRers are members of the Rig community. Secondly, Rigism isn't satrical at all. I removed the stuff about us liking big rigs because it's bad, since no BROTRRer considers the game bad that wouldn't make sense to say hate for the game inspired our way of life.

Also, we aren't mocking anything when we say YOU'RE WINNER, so that needed a change too.

Yes, it is satirical. Your edits are themselves a type of satire, further enforced by your refusal to admit that they are. Read High burlesque and tell me that isn't an accurate description of what you are doing. (Actually, knowing you you will tell us it isn't...) That doesn't change, however, that what your community does is takes a game that is considered by everyone else to be among the worst games ever, and satirically elevates it to the level of a religion. Rigism is a form of satire by the definition of everyone else. --Tjstrf 18:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
It isn't satirical. It seems that from what you and the others have been saying that Wikipedians are all about backing up sources, show one source where a BROTRRer ever said that Rigism was satirical. Big Rigs is a cult hit, please stop making it sound like the fans are all just trying to be funny and sarcastic.
Apparently you have never read the book of Rigism. (http://www.freewebs.com/brotrr/bookrig.htm) For shame! And you claim to be a BROTTR yourself! That source is all that is necessary to declare the movement a satire of both religion and the game. --Tjstrf 22:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I have indeed read that WINNER book, and I noticed that it doesn't say anything anywhere in there about satire. It's interesting how you can just declare something a joke because you don't believe in it.
I suppose you believe A Modest Proposal to be a serious work as well? The entire concept of satire involves that it not be admitted but instead treated as it it were serious. Duh. --Tjstrf 03:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay, but the entire concept of being serious ingolves treating something as if it were serious, and that is the case we're dealing with here. There are people who love Big Rigs, and people still buy the game after 3 years. Just because you (who I'm sure never even played the game) choose to believe the opinion of a few reviewers doesn't mean that there can't be people out there who love the complete freedom of leaving the gameworld and driving through anything. Stop forcing your opinion on us.
I'm not forcing my opinion on anybody, because I don't even have one on the game itself. I've never played the game, and I have no opinion of it. I think the idea sounds funny in fact, and probably will play the game at some point just for the humour value. All I am doing is removing the nonsensical claim that Rigism is not satire. Because it is satire. The same way that the Invisible Pink Unicorn is satire. It' not a few reviewers either, it's ALL the professional review magazines and web sites. There are, according to one of you, 50 total members in the entire fan base for Big Rigs. The fact we are even including a section on the miniscule fanbase is already overrepresenting one side of the issue.
Think of it this way. If I claimed to believe that Swift's Modest Proposal (linked to earlier in the page) was a sensible idea, and further wrote derivitive pieces applying the philosophy of A Modest Proposal to other situations, and writing arguments as to its practicality and in its defense, and founded a community of like-minded individuals, all of whom spent their time online talking about the merits of cannabalism as a superior form of population control which had many side benefits, and all of us acted totally serious about it, would it make the community not be a satirical one? NO. We would still be engaging in a form of satirical humour, even if all of us swore we weren't. We would just be taking satire to an extreme form, idolizing and obsessing over what was originally a thought-provoking JOKE. (Except for the 3 or so people who were just sickos who liked the idea of eating people.)--tjstrf 15:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying. Look at it this way:

Most people today don't play text adventures. Some people do, and they even prefer them to graphical adventures. Does that make them sarcastic because they disagree with the mainstream?

No, and we seriously do like BIG RIGS. I for one love the idea of leaving the gameworld, I love the idea of driving straight up cliffs without reducing my speed, and I love the fact that a game that contains these and more features is availible for the low price of $5. I honestly feel this way, so first of all I don't appreciate you saying that it's only because of the criticism that I like BIG RIGS.

Secondly I like the idea of a philosophy that will allow me to carry over the feeling I get when I see YOU'RE WINNER into real life, that's not satire either. This is the way the BROTRRers feel, and we don't appreciate being treated like a bunch of jokers.

I didn't say no one actually likes it, but rather that they like it because of the same reasons that other groups think it is the worst game ever. I was specifically saying that the psuedo-religion is a form of satire, not the entire fanbase itself. I can probably edit the section to more fairly represent this. --tjstrf 21:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
It seems you may have been misjudged, you may just be a possible WINNER. Would you consider joining the BROTRRer union? We could help you find the true WINNER inside you!
No thanks, I already have more forum memberships than I can handle and a non-satirical religion. Also, if you can work that latest addition somewhere into the paragraph before, it would be fine there. --tjstrf 00:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
You dare to defy an offer made by one of the WINNER followers of LORD STELL? YOU SHALL DIE A THOUSAND DEATHS AND BE BANISHED TO A RIGLESS HELL OF ALEX NAVARRO'S LOSER REVIEWS!!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.122.93.108 (talk • contribs) .
User has been given NPA warning.--Drat (Talk) 07:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Christianity is a satirical religion. - 81.179.69.230 10:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
And you're a troll. --tjstrf 18:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Patch?

Could there be a section about the patch? It is quite important, since it tries to trick people into believing they could actually lose. Alx xlA 00:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

  • There is enough information about the patch as it is. Cirus206 16:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


  • It doesn't trick people into anything, it just makes the other truck move. Nobody would have downloaded it if it stopped them from always being WINNER.

[edit] YOU'RE WINNER screen?

I believe that a screen of the infamous trophy would add to the article, since that is one of the main reasons the game is so popular --Cirus206 21:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. It might even go some way to shutting up the nutters who keep causing trouble.--Drat (Talk) 06:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oh, for God's sake...

This talk page has become a load of absolute drivel. Should I just delete all the ALL CAPS NONSENSE and off-topic junk, or keep it in? --tjstrf 17:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Nah, the talk page doesn't matter. We are an encyclopedia. I would like to get some support in deleting the "cult status" section as it's not sourced. Hbdragon88 19:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Sure, no prejudice towards recreation by a sensible individual if it can be sourced. --tjstrf 20:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
It IS sourced, theres a link to the fan page, what more "sources" do you need? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.206.52.67 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Namely, a reliable source that backs up the claim and is verifiable. If a magazine or something covered the cult status, for instnace, it would qualify as being notable.Hbdragon88 22:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Tell you the truth I think you just deleted it because you have something against the games fanbase, but okay. You want your site to become a festering pit of bias and hate, go right ahead and let it be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.116.197 (talk • contribs) 01:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, the stupid, random, trollish comments that are constantly posted here certainly don't help your "cause" or whatever it is, but the basic issue is WP:Verifiability. --tjstrf 01:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

You think I enjoy this? I had to rmove some of my own criticism of the Classic NES Series and of Super Mario Advance 4 because I couldn't find any sources for it. It wasn't a major enough viewpoint expressed in any review. So I had to eventually take it out. The bottom line is that I want this to become a good article, and unreferenced statemtns are standing in the way. Go to WikiFAQs [1] [2] Hbdragon88 02:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I havent been posting that shit, thats some idiot trying to make us look bad. And you can easily verify that the fanbase exists by looking at the webpage, so theres no real issue here.

[edit] GA nom

There's a lack of images and is shorter than what I'd expect of a GA. Therefore, I failed. Will (Glaciers melting in the dead of night) 17:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

One of the article's editors has requested another look following the GA Review above. In looking at the article, I agree with Sceptre's basic premise ("short article"-not broad in coverage) but will give a little more detail and point out other issues. I always like to compare format and styling to similar articles and in this case I referenced the game articles of Doom, 3D Monster Maze and Perfect Dark. In reviewing the article according to the Good Article Criteria, this is how the article stacks up.
1. It is well written. - Weak Pass

  • I gave it a weak pass because there is no glaring violations of WP:MOS however there are some awkard sentences that don't quite flow. I would take another look at them. Like...
  • "The player can, then, simply guide their truck through the checkpoints and to the finish at their leisure in order to achieve victory."
  • "This introduced an inconsistency between the track design a player believed to have selected and the one actually used."

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. - Weak Pass

  • Overall the article strives to be well referenced with sources from reputable gaming magazines that pass WP:RS. It is a weak pass because there some minor OR concerns that need to be addressed. Like...
  • "Put simply, Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing largely ignores the laws of physics."
  • "Despite all these issues, Big Rigs managed to be a commercial success. Though no known sales figures exist, the game was reportedly made entirely on a $15,000 budget. At USD $5 per game, Stellar Stone would have only needed to sell 3,000 copies to break even. According to GameSpot, Big Rigs sold several times that amount." (OR synthesis. You are assuming it is a success without a reliable source publishing it as so. It is even pointed out that you really can't know because there is no known sales figure)

3. It is broad in its coverage. - Needs Improvement

  • A significant area of coverage that is missing is development. In reading this article, a persistent thought I had was whether or not the developers intended for the game to be this bad.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy - Needs Improvement

  • While I understand that this is a really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, REALLY bad game, it doesn't have to be so blatantly and repeatedly asserted that it is. It is not the absence of positive reviews that makes this article fail NPOV it is the overbearing nature of its view that this game is so bad, when the article should be just stating the bare facts and letting the reader come to that conclusion. As WP:NPOV notes "As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. It is a point of view that is neutral - that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject." The whole tone of this article presents itself as in opposition to the subject. Some examples...(emphasis mine)
  • "In addition, no proper racing occurs in Big Rigs, as the "computer-controlled" opponent vehicle has no AI and never actually moves from the starting position."
  • "There are no true obstacles whatsoever for the player to negotiate in Big Rigs"
  • "Upon completion of the "race," (scare quotes) "
  • ";Big Rigs was subject to an overwhelming number of negative reviews."
  • "and was actually described by Morgan Webb as "the worst game ever made."

5. It is stable - Pass

  • The article is a bit of a vandal target but the editors on this article seem to be pretty active in maintaining the page's integrity. The main aspects of the article appear to be fairly stable.

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. - Pass

  • For an article with this subject matter, the cover shot will suffice for the purpose of GA evaluation. For further consideration, a screen shot from the game (Maybe the famous YOU'RE WINNER) would be a plus to have.


I hope this clarifies some of the issues the previous reviewer failed the article for. If you have any other questions don't hesitate to contact me. Agne 00:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

While I don't agree with your opinion of the game in #4 (It's really really really really really really really good in my opinion), I must thank you for pointing out that the article really bashes the game. That was my main problem, and im sorry that my argument deteriorated into a flame war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.116.7 (talk • contribs)

I see that the article has been renominated for GA. While I will let another reviewer make the final decision, I strongly encourage the editors to consider incorporating details about the Game's development into the article. There is very little said in the article about development at all and I do believe that is a significant component to the GA requirement of being Broad in Coverage. Agne 08:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

How would they do that? There really isnt any info on development —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.116.197 (talk • contribs)
I've looked for information on the development online, and there is virtually none. While it does seem like a rushed version of MRC:S! from viewing the game files (there even seem to be pieces of it still included on the Big Rigs CD), this isn't hosted at a reliable source anywhere. There's really nothing factual or proven that can be put into the article. --CirusTalk/Contribs 02:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Concured with Circus206 - there simply isn't anything else to write. It's a low-budget, low-profile game that caught on and became a cult classic due to Navarro's hilarious video review. Other than that, and the numerous other reviews, there isn't much else to latch onto. Hbdragon88 03:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

In all fairness, the game had fans before Navarro's review.

[edit] GA re-review

I've gone through the article and, at this time I don't believe that it qualifies for GA Status. Please see my comments below:

1. It is well written. - Needs Improvement

Although the previous reviewer gave this category a weak pass, I think the prose is a little too awkward for a Good article. Although the cases that the previous reviewer pointed out were fixed, there were points that confused me.

"There are no obstacles for the player to negotiate in Big Rigs, as the truck may freely be driven on and off roads without any loss of traction, straight up hills, through structures, and even out of the map's boundaries. The truck falls through bridges as if they do not even exist."

The statement that there are no obstacles, and that the truck may fall through bridges seem incompatible to me. Although I think I understand what is meant, the way that it is written seems to be confusing.

"Big Rigs was subject to a great number of negative reviews" - Doesn't really flow right

"and so this screen may appear to end the race before it even begins." I'm unclear about the exact effect of this screen. Does it _appear to end_ the race (and thus the race still goes on), or does it appear (*poof*) _to end the race_ and the game is over?

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. - Needs improvement

I think there are a couple of other things that really do need some sort of citation. There's nothing about the patch that was released that's soruced either inline, or as a reference.

I am giving it a "Needs Improvement" instead of the "Weak Pass" that the previous reviewer did, because, as far as I can tell, one of the cites doesn't back up what's being claimed.

The Article states:

"Netjak rewrote the code of their site to allow the game to receive a score of 0.0"

The source states:

"The only reason this game doesn't get a negative score is that I don't think our php gurus envisioned us ever giving a game a negative score, and because I reserve negative scores for a game that makes me physically ill."

I don't see any evidence that the code was re-written to allow a zero.

Also see the comment about "development flaws" below.

3. It is broad in its coverage. -- Needs improvement

I know that in the notes left to the previous reviewer, you said that there is no development information. I do have to agree with them that it really seems like a big hole. Was it meant to be that bad, if not why? It really seems to me that if a game is notable due to it being bad, that there would be some coverage in the game development world about it. Maybe there is not a full post-mortem, but I'd expect at least a few comments.

The statement "Due to a developer oversight..." makes it seem like there is some information out there about it. If that's not the case, then that line presents OR/POV issues and needs to be revised.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy -- Needs Improvement

Although most of the statements that seemed POV before have been resolved, there are a couple that stand out to me.

"Big Rigs managed to be a commercial success. According to GameSpot, Big Rigs sold well over 20,000 units" -- 20,000 units being a success is POV. Although the game might not have been a complete failure, I don't think many game developers would be happy selling only 20,000 copies.

"However, the patch simply replaced the broken track with a mirror image of the first track, without changing the corresponding preview image or name." --- The use of the term "simply" here suggests that the developers took an easy way out. Although this is probably the case, without any evidence to the motivation of the dev team, I don't think it's appropriate.

5. It is stable. - Pass

Not many changes since it was nominated.

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. - Needs Improvement

Although an article doesn't need images to be a good article, the ones that are included need to be properly tagged. This includes a declaration of the fair use rationale. I have listed this category as needing improvement because the screen capture of the trophy does not have a declaration about why it should be considered fair use.

I do (also) agree with the previous reviewer. It would be nice to see an actual screen shot (other than the trophy) from the game. The Bethling(Talk) 07:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I will properly tag the trophy image right now and will later get another screenshot showing the ability to drive through virtually anything in any given level. CirusTalk/Contribs 20:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

So what's being said here is that this article is doomed to a B-class unless we find some dev info? *sighs* Hbdragon88 22:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, good luck with that. Stellar Stone has been pretty low-profile for basically its entire existance. They didn't really offer any information about the game.

[edit] Midnight Race Club: Supercharged

As anyone who has frequently watched this article knows, there was a section concerning the issue of Big Rigs being a pre-released version of Midnight Race Club: Supercharged. The section was removed due to it being an iffy source. However, running another Google search, this has shown up. A collection of screenshots from Midnight Race Club, showing even more detail as to how it could be a finished version of Big Rigs. The logo for MRC is located within the game files for Big Rigs, as are many of the textures for the bicycles and cars. Also, the levels shown in one of the screenshots shows that the same five levels are in both games. Lastly, a big rig can even be seen in one of the screenshots. Is there any way to implement this into the article? CirusTalk/Contribs 04:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe that would constitute original resarch to claim that they are related. Someone's gotta say it, and then it has to be backed up by a couple other verifable people as well. Hbdragon88 04:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article Content

I read the deleted sections. Yes, I'm aware that that it is unsourced from any reputable publication, and I'm aware that the proof for the connection to the Supercharged game is only in the game files which make that original research, but I believe Wikipedia should go for the "completion" of information not "restriction." As the nomination above added, there is NO reputable publication to refer to. When you look up the cult status of the game, there is NO article about them, they are only in a few joke fan sites and message boards. When you look up for information on its development, there IS no information, while some can speculate or even conduct research (but that would be original research...), there is no place, not even in Russia except the developers themselves that can gives us a real source to cite.

When the rules for citation and original research was made, it was to make sure articles would be reliable and accurate, it was for the critical articles in physics, mathematics, and history where the article have to be absolutely accurate right from the start. Fandom, analysis, literature, and many others subjects, just don't have the attention or sources to cite from. Too many times, things such as controversy or content that need inference are not published and are only acknowledged in discussions. Big Rigs is not a major game, it did not gained massive attention, there is just no place for anyone to cite the cult status of the game (since fan sites and message boards don't count), the development, or anything else really. Since what the article information only exist in original research or in some message board, this article is likely to be doomed to B-class, and I don't think deleting massive content on what we do know will help.DarkGhost89 02:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that's just the problem when Wikipedia is not paper or a typical encyclopedia. Wikipedia shouldn't "lower its standards" for articles simply because they have varying amounts of coverage. How do we decide which article includes OR or not? WP:NOR is important because it reduces major problems with what to include or not to include. For instnace, I was just in an argument over the A-Squad Power Rangers. Do we include the "fan generated" names for four nameless rangers? Only a minority of the fans adopted those names [3]. What about other names used by other fanfiction writers? No, we remove them all, as it was never stated. Likewise, we have very limited capabilities to infer anything, and we cannot put forth the original theory that Supercharged = Big Rigs or mention its alleged cult status. Hbdragon88 02:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More possible evidence for Midnight Race Club Supercharged

I don't know if anyone else has noticed this, but the some of the loading and menu screens in Big Rigs have cars in the background. Such as in this screenshot from Big Rigs. --Bears54 05:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stop this editing and WINNERness

This game is not winner. Wikipedia is meant to be an factual encylopedia, and it's fact the game is really bad. This article should be locked for editing.

Look, YOUR OPINION is that the game is not good. I myself have found a lot of enjoyment out of this game, and since the entire point of a video game is to entertain you I think its safe to say that the game accomplishes its goal and can be considered good. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.122.93.108 (talk) 03:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC).
This is an encyclopedia, not a place for showcasing your opinion as a random person on the Internet. Practically all reliable sources that have reviewed this game rated it as being terrible.--Drat (Talk) 09:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

People do this all of the time. You should see some of the gamespot forums. I think we need to lock it or something.--Jim Shorts 03:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Jim Shorts

Why bother? They'd only come back after the block was raised. They'll grow out of it one day.--Drat (Talk) 07:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, we'll grow out of liking a game. Maybe its you who should grow out of spending your lives feeling special by modding wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.122.93.108 (talk) 16:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC).
I meant growing out of vandalising the article. And I fail to see how contributing to Wikipedia is a childish act.--Drat (Talk) 16:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not like they actually enjoyed it. Most of them probably haven't even played it, considering the limited availability of it. They just like to be stupid. I can deal with it for now.--Jim Shorts 03:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)Jim Shorts

[edit] Rigism

Hey, guys, just ignore the, "Rigists". This fad will die out like the Chuck Norris one if we just ignore it. Believe me, I've dealt with these guys before, and I find that just ignoring them pisses them off the most (I fought back, they acted satirical. I ignored them, they massed threads trying to taunt me). Like Jimbo Wales said. "We laugh, edit it, and move on." Don't pour fuel into the fire. --YoungOcelot 19:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

^ This man lies. Rigism is a real a religion as any other one, and our praise for BROTRR is as limited as the speed of a big rig. the BROTRR page has been edited maliciously time and again to spread evil propaganda about this great game, and seeing as how Wikipedia is meant to be a factual website you should stop being a LOSER and let us inform curious people about the real fact of BROTRR. -bjorno

A curse upon YoungOcelot for insulting the almighty RIGS and all that is RIGISM. Remember, followers and followers-to-be, RIGISM is a full-fledged philosophy and not a fad. Do not believe the words of HWSNBN and his minions and remember, YOU'RE WINNER! Absolutely Curtains 22:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I just erased all of that "editing" you just did. I have to admit that some of it is pretty funny, but do you want to be banned? You certainly are on the right track. I bet you don't even have Big Rigs do you?--Jim Shorts 02:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)Jim Shorts

[edit] Semi-protection

I have requested semi-protection for this article. --YoungOcelot 05:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This crap is getting out of hand.--Jim Shorts 03:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)Jim Shorts

And it was rejected because there was not enough recent activity. I guess that IP's total overhaul of the page wasn't enough to justify protection. --YoungOcelot 23:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

That's happened more than once hasn't it?--Jim Shorts 02:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Jim Shorts

[edit] Added POV tag

This is a review at points. It talks very negatively about the subject, and seems to just drag on and on with criticisms. This isn't helped by words like "Furthermore" putting the emphasis on all of the glitches. When it mentions the patch, it mentions the 'fixes' but emphasises the shortcomings.

The article kicks off straight away by quoting Gamespot, setting the tone for this article as a collection of quotes from reviews. Not many 'Reception' sections have as many quotes from reviews as this one.

And what sums up the poor POV of this article is this sentence. "It is widely considered to be one of the worst video games, if not the worst, ever." I can almost understand the first bit but saying "if not the worst, ever." just isn't neccessary.

I hope you now know why I added this tag. Cream147 Shout at me for doing wrong 21:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

It talks very negative about the subject because there simply are no positive sides to this game, it has an 8 out of 100 score on Metacritic with the highest score being a 10 out of 100, which means a 1.0. Furthermore, Netjak specifically rewrote their site code to be able to give them a 0. Bananas 15:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Exactly — many review sites just technically cannot give a score lower than "1 out of 10", hence why the Metacritic score is as high as 8 out of 100. The game really is that bad. The article appears to be in line with the describing points of view guideline. -- intgr 08:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Show us at least ONE reliable source that seriously praises the game. I dare you. Good luck.--Drat (Talk) 10:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Did I say it was good? I wasn't saying it was good at all. I understand it got 8 on Metacritic. That's how I found out about this game. I know that a site actually rewrote their code for it. I know everything that I've been told about it from you! What I am saying is the removal of phrases, such as "if not the worst, ever" which I notice is still there. However, I have to say, a little bit has been done relating to the POV of this article which I'm pleased about. I can't believe how negatively you have received this, I am merely trying to follow Wikipedia policy. Any sentences that try and sound negative, should, in my opinion, be quotes. Not all of them are. That's all I'm saying. Cream147 Shout at me for doing wrong 14:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I think your quote is taken out of context. The entire statement is "It is widely considered to be one of the worst video games, if not the worst, ever." While this fails WP:WEASEL, I would personally consider it a statement of a fact — the article does not say that the game is bad, it says that the majority of some unnamed entity considers it bad. I'll go and fix it. -- intgr 17:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh shit, I accidentally put my message here. I meant to reply to the IP who put a message in the "Pov check tag" topic above. I'd only looked at the diff and assumed it was the bottom topic, and blindly added my message. Sorry!--Drat (Talk) 08:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A modest proposal

This page has undergone fair changes over its lifetime, but not mentioning Rigism at all, as the article is currently written, is a bit silly. I'm a Rigist and a BROTRRer, but I understand the purpose of an encyclopedia and support the inclusion of all the negative opinions, since they are the majority and come from the sources Wikipedia administrators have deemed most notable. However, to say that no one likes the game is a lie. BIG RIGS's fame is almost completely thanks to the Internet, and there is a group of people on the Internet that like the game and have created a religion around it. Are we not notable enough? Is it really such a big deal? --BranER

In my opinion, the article doesn't even hint that "no one likes the game"; to my knowledge, there just aren't any reliable sources covering either of these communities. As long as this is the case, it cannot be covered on Wikipedia. For more information, see the verifiabiltiy policy. -- intgr #%@! 22:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
It is true, as far as I know, that there are no reliable sources mentioning the BROTRRers or Rigism, however they can easily be proven to exist simply by going to yourewinner.com or reading this talk page. There's no reliable source to verify that Rigism is a high burlesque religion/philosophy, but saying that it's based around BIG RIGS is verified by yourewinner.com -- which, in this case, is the best source. Saying that yourewinner.com -- the offical website of Rigism -- is an unreliable source to cite when outlining the basic principles of Rigism is the equivalent to saying that a film's official website is an unreliable source for a release date.
I'm not even proposing a full section; a sentence like "Despite the universally poor reviews, Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing has acheived a following on the Internet known as the BROTRRers, who have also crafted a religion around the game called Rigism." That would be a passing mention, which is fair considering how non-notable Rigism is. --BranER
Except that logically, that would fail - no reliable source can verify that they actually follow a religion, name themselves BROTRRers, or base their group on the game. Furthermore, your sentence implies that the internet, or a good portion of it, follows this game - it would better be "an internet following", or "an internet group of followers".KrytenKoro 09:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
This "reliable source" stuff gets so odd. We can prove rigists exist with sites like yourewinner.com. What makes it not a reliable source? Bias? This is a horrible double standard. I personally prefer Rigism more than other religions, but you don't see me trolling about against christianity. You guys are only tolerant when it's politically correct. - X23
Because christianity, regardless of your beliefs, exists (as a religion) and is significant. Rigism isn't important, and hasn't been covered in any non-trivial way by reliable sources that are wholly independent to the group.--Drat (Talk) 21:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
What he means is that you cant use yourself as source - 84.27.224.189 16:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
So basically if you're a Christian you can't edit the Wikipedia page on Christianity? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.231.40 (talk) 16:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
You can't if you are using yourself as a source. You can if you cite reliable sources for information you add; using sources you wrote, however, is a bit of a grey area (scroll down to Professional self-published sources). In the case of these rigists, they don't seem to grasp why they can't just go write stuff, stick it on a website, and call it a reliable source. Whereas with Christianity, you of course have the Bible and other religious texts (that at the very least can be used as sources on their contents, but probably not for any direct analysis), and you have countless reliable and third-party published sources over the centuries that have analysed them backwards, forwards and sideways.--Drat (Talk) 02:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I kind of understand what you're implying here, but linking to yourewinner.com would provide a reliable source. If I was to look at a horse I would consider the fact that I was currently seeing a horse as reliable proof that horses exist. The same logic applies to yourewinner.com, it's an example of a fan community based around this game, nobody's citing themselves as a source, they're claiming that a dedicated fan community exists and then linking to the active homepage of that community so that the reader can plainly see that it exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.248.246 (talk) 04:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
The fact they exist is irrelevant. They aren't a notable group unless multiple reliable sources have written about them non-trivially. Otherwise we'd have to allow random people trying to promote their websites just because they exist.--Drat (Talk) 09:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
But that's not what's happening and you know it. Stating that the game is not universally hated is proven by the fact that a website of people who enjoy it exists, as well as the fact that several people from that website are debating with you over whether or not to include half a sentence awknowledging that Big Rigs is not loathed by everyone on earth and back it up with a legitimate example of the game's fanbase. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.248.246 (talk) 21:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps the wording used in the article is bad. However, the rigger's opinions aren't worth much, from an encyclopedic perspective.--Drat (Talk) 01:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
But you're saying that the opinions expressed in Alex nevarro's review ARE worth much, that's unfair and unencyclopedic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.248.246 (talk) 17:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Alex Navarro's views rate as much as any other views from noteworty, reliable publications. The riggers website is not a noteworthy, reliable publication. Presenting things neutrally doesn't mean giving everthing equal weight, but weighting them according to the prevalence of the views. The simple fact is that practically every review site/magazine worth a damn that has reviewed this game has given it a thumbs way down. Only one group seems to like it - a random bunch of people on the internet, about as far from a reliable source as you can get - and it could be tongue in cheek for the most part.--Drat (Talk) 02:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
What is any website but a bunch of random people on the internet? Why, that's what Wikipedia itself is. Yourewinner.com is not "a bunch of random people" any more than a video game review website is, and you know it.
(1) Wikipedia is very clear that wikis, including itself, are not reliable sources. (2) Professional sites generally have some level of professional editorial and legal oversight and accountability. For a few dollars a month, I could purchase a domain, set up a website, and write whatever I want there. That doesn't make me a reliable source. The situation is very different when people are paid to write about a subject for a living, others are paid to review such content, and still others are retained to consult on legal issues related to such endeavors. The fundamental difference is that the level of oversight and that the writer is not the same entity as the publisher, who is professionally dedicated to this particular field. Please read the self-published sources section of the Wikipedia verifiability policy: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources". — TKD::Talk 20:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I see your point, but nobody wants to take information from yourewinner.com to prove anything, just mention the fact that a community exists and then use its existance as proof of that statement.

And of course you still need a third-party source to show that the site is encyclopedic and notable enough to mention. Most of what I said applies regardless of whether the site is used as a source or as a particular example of an assertion made in-text. — TKD::Talk 03:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The site is obviously not encyclopedic (which, judging by what I see here means that its not useless and constantly vandalized) but neither is gamespot, and no third party news source or whatever talks about THEIR review, yet you still feel the need to mention that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.240.123 (talk) 19:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
No, fan sites are by and large unencyclopedic because they are written by people whose opinions a general audience would not care about, except in the cases of fan sites that receive independent and significant coverage from reputable third parties. This is distinct from, but related to, the issue of verifiability, which raises matters of the reliability of self-published material. Gamespot, even given recent controversies, is a well-known and significant entity in the realm of gaming publications, and the viewpoints that it publishes are generally considered significant(especially since the matter at hand was well before the recent controversy). You should read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight: Significant opinions should be mentioned, but those held by a very small minority are not mentioned at all (the article on Earth, for example, should not mention modern support for the Flat Earth viewpoint). Fan sites often fail this requirement. — TKD::Talk 19:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
How can you baselessly claim that gamespot is significant and has opinions that are widely agreed with and then demand that what I say be sourced? Wikipedia is nowhere near being neutral, and this article is an example, moderators are claiming anything that agrees with their viewpoint is reliable and anything that disagrees is worthless. Taking the opinion of a majority and stating it as fact is actually the opposite of neutrality, and therefore you are actually harming the "NPOV" you love so dearly by refusing to give a passing mention to other points of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.240.123 (talk) 21:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I can claim that because there is no evidence or implication that all of Gamespot's work is muddled in controversy (particularly something that they reviewed years ago). If you're really concerned about that, though, there are probably other representative sources that we can use instead. However, let me emphasize something: NPOV does not mean that all points of view are given equal weight; rather, it means that Wikipedia itself does not attempt to take a stand by giving opinions of independent, third-party, reliable sources due weight in proportion to their prominence. Read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight again. In the case at hand, find a professionally written review that rated this game well. Opinions of random fans are not reliable sources, for the reasons that I wrote above. — TKD::Talk 01:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
That makes no sense. Gamespot is a third party independent of wikipedia (since unlike wikipedia it is not owned by the church of scientology) and the opinions of professional BIG RIGS players are definitely more reliable than the opinion of some random joe shmo on some backwater review website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.240.123 (talk) 00:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Netjak

This line: "Netjak had its code rewritten just to give the game its first ever 0.0" is incorrect. The article states: "The only reason this game doesn't get a negative score is that I don't think our php gurus envisioned us ever giving a game a negative score, and because I reserve negative scores for a game that makes me physically ill.". He/she/it doesn't state that their website couldn't give out 0s. They said that the only reason it doesn't have a -1 or lower is because the website probably wouldn't be able to show it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.240.159 (talk) 04:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm John Zeitler, lead programmer for Netjak. While the Big Rigs review was written prior to my assumption of programming duties, I can confirm that the code indicates that a score of zero was impossible prior to a certain point, and that the comments indicate that the ability to award a zero was added specifically for Big Rigs. Our current editorial policy is that no game warrants a zero score unless it is fundamentally unplayable, and Big Rigs fits that description. Thanks. 198.140.4.205 (talk) 14:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Undue weight

Per the later parts of the "A modest proposal" discussion above, mention of the "rigger" community is undue weight. Countless notable, reliable sources have negatively reviewed this game. The rigger community is very small, and has not been covered non-trivially by reliable, third party sources.--Drat (Talk) 04:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree! I've just found this article and see no reason why that section is as long as it is. I would have deleted it myself, but reading the talk page here just saps the will to live. Onesecondglance (talk) 13:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Rigism has received some mentions by third-party websites, but these were generally personal blogs and not considered big enough to warrant a mention. If you encoutner any more edits about rigism that don't conform to Wikipedia's policies, feel free to remind them that we have our own wiki where they're free to write whatever about big rigs and rigism. Better that than giving the impression our community's full of mindless vandals, when generally speaking it's only the newer members who keep editing rigism into this article.--85.211.144.81 (talk) 11:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reworded scentence

I changed Big Rigs received universally negative reviews with the critics considering it to be one of the worst video games, if not the worst, ever. Big Rigs received almost universally negative reviews with the critics considering it to be one of the worst video games, if not the worst, ever. That was added because of the fact there are a small group of people who like the game and wouldnt give it a negative review —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.24.187 (talk) 05:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

They are not a reliable source. Every review from reliable sources that could be cited gave this game a thumbs down.--Drat (Talk) 05:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
However they do exist maybe it should be reworded to mention that there is a small fanbase Coho (talk) 15:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
The group is so small that it's not worth mentioning, per WP:WEIGHT.--Drat (Talk) 02:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] more sites

This article on Big rigs over the road racing should refer to more websites giving it a bad review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.113.193.137 (talk) 02:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much the only well-known gaming sites that have reviewed the game are linked to in the article. There are plenty of reviews from places like blogs or user reviews on sites like GameSpot but apparently they're not neutral enough for wikipedia's standards or something. Aside from that there are some reviews that aren't in English.--85.211.97.223 (talk) 12:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)