Talk:Fragile Allegiance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fragile Allegiance 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.
Low This article is on a subject of low priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
VG To-do:
Knight chess piece This article is within the scope of WikiProject Strategy games, an effort by several users to improve Wikipedia articles on strategy 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.
Low This article is on a subject of low priority within strategy games for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
Strategy games To-do:
Maintained The following user(s) are actively involved with this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
Archangel Lucifer (talk • contribs • email)
This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.

[edit] WP:VG Assessment

I see some good work here, but there's still a long way to go. I'm going to maintain the current Start-class rating, but here's some pointers to improve the article, I don't think its too far off B-class.

  • Make sure the lead section summarises everything that follows it. See WP:LS.
  • The gameplay section is too long. Get rid of the sub-headings in the section, and try to summarise the gameplay of the game as briefly as possible: three or four paragraphs should do it. Make sure to get it referenced: you can use primary sources like the game manual and official site here, although secondary sources from reviews and the like are preferable.
  • Don't do a direct quote from the manual like that for the plot section. Describe what is in the manual's description in your own words, referencing it to the manual. Quoting it out in such a manner could be taken as copyright infringement. The end point in the plot section about statistics isn't well written, or seemingly relevant to the plot. If it is notable, move it to the gameplay section.
  • The soundtrack doesn't need a full section simply for a single statement. Expand the section's prose and add track listings or simply move the single sentence into the article's introduction.
  • Is there any development information? If so, add a section for it and merge the compatibility section into it. You need to get that compatibility information referenced as well, avoid original research and cite it to a secondary source.
  • Redo the critical reception section in full prose, taking reviews and discussing the reception of various elements of the game, comparing different reactions on key points. That can help establish what is notable for inclusion in the gameplay section. In addition, if you want to add the scores for various reviews, use {{VG Reviews}} to accomodate them in a tidy fashion.
  • The external links section should come after the references. Plus, make sure that the external links included comply with external links policy. The GameSpot one isn't really necessary as its already used as a reference, while the MobyGames one should only be included if it contains information beyond this article that isn't appropriate in an encyclopedic context but would still be useful to a reader.

See the example articles over at WP:VG for ideas of what to do. Rating Start-class, Low importance. -- Sabre (talk) 17:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I've updated the article taking all of this into consideration although I can't seem to find any development info regarding this game. Any more ideas on how to improve this article would be greatly appreciated. -- Archangel Lucifer (talk) 09:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
A lot of the original points Sabre pointed out are still needing to be looked into. To really give things in a nutshell, you should do the following:
  • Critical Response would probably be best named as Reception, and really could use that VG Reviews template mentioned above. Additionally the section could use a minor rewrite: the info is a little jumbled.
  • Development can include game marketing, packaging, bug fixes with patches by a company etc. That might give you a bit more room to work with.
  • Avoid "Many people" in statements, it gets treated as a weasel word even if justified. Try just "Players" and it should give the same result. The sentences there can easily be developed a bit more to pad the section and make it a little less jumbled.
  • Try to sprinkle some more references in there. You reference the manual just once for example: usually with game articles you'll see it cited at least multiple times. Basically read through the article and ask yourself as you go "is there anything here that looks like it could be contested?"
Hope that helps. It's still at start for now, but if you can address these issues and improve it give me a shout and I'll take a look at reassessing it. -- Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:VG Assessment

The article is certainly taking form, I'm upping the rating to B-class. A lot of the prose is in place, just give it a run through to remove weasel words and give it a good copy edit to ensure the text flows. The other main issue is the references. I understand that its an older game and is unlikely to have as extensive coverage as later games online, but any additional references to help verify various points throughout would certainly not go amiss. One last thing is the use of flags in the infoboxes. These shouldn't be used. Take a look at some of the high quality VG articles for how release dates in the infobox should be done. Other than that, I'd consider the good article nomination process, that should be able to give you some more specific points for improvement.

One final issue, the images are a bit too large (800px by 600px), and will hold you up with fair use issues later. Ensure they're of a lower resolution (I personally go for a width of 500px), but still of a good quality. Resizing with Photoshop or Paint Shop Pro should be able to deal with that. -- Sabre (talk) 17:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Running on Vista and XP

I've changed "will" to "may" in the comment about it crashing on XP when you load a saved game, as I have been running it for hours (saving and loading) without crashes using DosBox. I've had the same experiance with Windows Vista, and added a comment to that effect. The problem is I can't place a citation for this, however I clearly KNOW that the current cited information is incorrect.

I've also found that it has trouble with multiplayer but this may be more of a DosBox issue that anything else, but the only citation for this would be again my experiance and forum messages. -- QU4N71FY (talk) 20:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for confirmation that the game works on Windows Vista using DOSBox, as I have only used it on XP (and Win 95 back in the day) but I will have to search for a reference to confirm the fact. I never said that the game will crash when loading a saved game in DOSBox as I also have been running the game for hours with saves and reloads but the game crashes every time I try to RENAME a saved game when running in DOSBox or XP. Renaming ships and asteroids work fine but not saved games. Many people have reported the same thing so I don't think that the current sourced information is incorrect. If you could try RENAMING one of your saved games while running in DOSBox and see if it crashes, that will tell you if the information is incorrect.
Regarding multiplayer difficulties, I think it's more of a DOSBox problem than anything else but in all honesty I have never tried multiplayer. I've heard that it works for maybe a few hours before a de-sync is detected but all references to 'multiplayer issues' seem to come from people running the game in DOSBox. -- Archangel Lucifer (talk) 08:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)