Talk:Eurogamer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article is on a subject of Mid priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
VG To-do:
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 26/4/2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brighton, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource about Brighton and Hove. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page or the Portal.
Brighton To do:

Contents

[edit] Tagged for cleanup

Whats this mean? Has someone "reported" it or is it just an automated process? If so, how do we avoid a purge?

It means someone tagged / reported it. I've tried to clean the article up, so I've everyone else agrees that is is OK as it is, we can remove the tag. [maven] 17:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

It was probably tagged because whilst the article's existence is ok, it contains non-notable (Wikipedia:Notability) forumcruft.

Looks good to me maven, glad someone knows what they are doing! (Furbs)

If you're going to have a section on Eurogamer's running gags and you miss this one out then there really is no point.

Yeah, put it back in! Nice one though guys, this place is good. Oh, my name is blatantly missing from the regs list ;-)(kal)

I haven't seen you about, kal. But yeah, that deserves to be held in honour.

I think it is cleaned up! Yeah, I'll remove the tag. (Bunda)

You havn't see me about. It's kalel yeah? If you havn't seem me about then yuo have me on ignore! ;-)

Have you been posting like a bunny on smack? (Bunda)

[edit] What's up with this page?

Get rid of everything below the "Eurogamer Forum" section and tidy the EurogamerTV and "In the media" sections.

I honestly don't think that the Eurogamer page is any good at all. It's not serious nor objective, and it's basically full of information that no one besides Eurogamer's regular visitors will understand. Somebody should clean it up. That means replacing a lot of the existing text with something new. The first part is fine, but the rest of the article is definitely written by some of EG's board users, and, more importantly, for EG's board users. --Benjamin Soltani 18:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point. The info here is very much designed with non-regular visitors in mind. Regulars would not need to know the injokes and history surely? I dont really see how it could be written by anyone else other than the sites users? Otherwise where would the info come from? Essentially what you have here is a primer for those who wish to learn about the background to the site and its forum. Unlike many gaming sites, the Eurogamer forum is integral to the "experience" of the site and thus, imo, warrants discussion and explaination. If not, then I assume a wiki about a sports team would have any reference to its supportors traditions, songs and chants (and their history) removed?

I dont get the "not serious, nor objective" comment? Nothing contained in this article is (afaik) factually inaccurate, and the "humourous" sections that are there simply to inform, rather than amuse per se. (Furbs, 22/04/06)

As I've stated on the EG forum, the "forum info" heading and all info is not appropriate for Wikipedia according to its own guidelines here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Precedents "Communities, message boards and blogs are generally not notable". JammyB 17:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

cf. Gaming Age Forums. As a user the EG forum and not of NeoGAF, I can state that the info on the GAF page is next to useless for people who aren't members. (Teeth)

As also stated on the EG forum, you'll notice the word "generally". Ask any regular visitor to the Eurogamer site and they will tell you the main reason they visit is the forum. Given that EG itself falls under what I consider a "notable" website, I would argue that that its fair to include information about it. (Furbs)

IMO, encyclopedias have it all wrong. The way they should be written is similar to the style of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy's actual Guide, except with the information factually correct. Door-to-door encyclopedia salesmen would make a much larger profit if their books were worth reading. (Bunda), 24.4.06

[edit] Cruft removal

There, aced out the self-referential forum cruft that endangers the page on AfD. RGTraynor 17:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooo! Bunda the Great 17:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

An anon IP reverted this page to put back in all the forum nonsense despite it endangering the whole article and having gone through the process of removal. Reverted back but I guess this is going to keep happening. JammyB 13:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sensible Soccer 2006 criticism

I edited in a section about criticism of Eurogamer over Sensible Soccer 2006. British games journalist Stuart Campbell points out the flaws inherent in the game, and noted that these were completely omitted from Eurogamer's 9/10 scoring of the game. He also points out that negative feedback on the game was deleted from Eurogamer's comments section, and questions Eurogamer's integrity in awarding the game such a high score. Also, he noted that EG claimed in a preview that the game is not based on previous football management games by Codemasters, despite similarities between the game engines.

Why was this section removed? I note that this entry deals with certain controversies over EG's reviews (Halo 2, FIFA Street). In this respect, the controversy over Sensible Soccer 2006 should also be included.

I'm going to revert back to this noted criticism of Sensible Soccer 2006, as they are legitimate points in keeping with the information in this entry. --The Researcher 20:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey everyone, I'm a volunteer mediator hoping to help resolve this issue. Could all objections to the material under review be noted here? At first blood, the material appears to be properly cited. But we should all discuss the material here on this page so we can figure out what to do. Tsetna 13:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Update: I'm going to restore the material and ask users to look in here to start. Tsetna 20:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Update 2: I'll give this a few more days, then close the mediation case. I'll add the article to my watchlist. Tsetna 21:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Hey Tsetna, thanks for taking a look at the Sensi Soccer section --The Researcher 12:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Update: I've restored the section on the controversy over Eurogamer's review of Sensible Soccer 2006. This has been removed a number of times before, and has been reverted by a volunteer mediator in each case. It is interesting to note that no reason has ever been given as to why this section should be removed. --The Researcher 15:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] controversy section

"Gears Of War review" - Should this be added to criticism section? 8/10 is one of the lowest scores given (the other being Xbox 360 gamer UK). Where as all the other sites gave it 9-10 score. http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/gearsofwar/review.html?mode=web

I don't think so. Critics are known for having wildly differing opinions, and to merely have a score one or two points either side of another critic's score doesn't really warrant "controversy". In fact I'd also reckon that the "Halo 2 Score" criticism isn't really a criticism at all. It's just a (marginally) lower score than other sites. I suspect this is merely fanboy activism. The "Sensible Soccer" criticism is cited and can probably stay, although I don't think that it needs to feature so heavily on this rather small article. Bitkari 20:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
The guy that made Gears of War actually commented on the Eurogamer review in the official Gears of War message board. It is more trivia than controversy, maybe add a note in a trivia section instead? JayKeaton 03:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] International readership

There are quite a few Australian and American readers, for example, that use Eurogamer as their primary source for the gaming world JayKeaton 17:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] screenshot

I'm not familiar with how that works, but the current image is dead.
Someone feeling up to fix it? JackSparrow Ninja 01:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)