Talk:Halo (video game)/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 →

Contents


Congrats

Hey, I see this article will be the featured article of the day on the 15th. Congrats! BTW, you didn't by chance push for November 15 due to that being the day Halo 2 came out, did you? :) Anakinjmt 22:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Halo 2 came out on November 9, 2004. This Halo came out on November 15. James086Talk | Email 06:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Huh. I thought 2 came out on the 15th and 1 on the 9th. Eh, it happens. Anakinjmt (talk) 13:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I find this ironic, because I consider this to be an excellent example of precisely the sort of trash that the wiki can produce in the name of following guidelines. It's filled with ridiculous trivia like "The player can move around and look up, down, or to either side.", yet manages to completely fail to discuss why the game was considered good. After this poorly laid out introduction It proceeds to wander around a variety of topics, astonishingly promoting the soundtrack to it's own super-section before splitting the history into several sections that would be better off combined. So how is it that it passed FA? Well primarily due to "lots of sources cited.", "Excellent job, especially on the cites", " article is great, lots of references", etc. What are these? An collection of two pages of references that address concerns no one would ever have in the first place. A perfect example of rules over content. This article is typical of the sort of soulless writing that one would expect in a freshman term paper, not a FA. Maury 23:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
That is entirely your opinion. My opinion is that you are flat out wrong. It is NOT filled with "ridiculous trivia." The "example" you have was not trivia, but explaining how the game is like other FPS's: you can move around and look up, down, left, and right in an FPS. It is not Wikipedia's job to say why a game is good, but to inform the reader that people believe the game to be good, which it does in the critical reception area. The lead is an excellent lead, giving an overall synopsis of the article, which is what it is supposed to do. Soundtracks are CD's, which as a rule have their own article. It should not come as a shock to see that it has its own article. And, only a few sections have main articles, and those main articles are way too big to fit in here. And as for your comment on "freshman term papers," let me just say that, as a sophomore in college, I, and many others that I know, wrote excellent term papers in our freshman year. It appears that you don't care for the game, which is fine, but that doesn't mean this article doesn't deserve FA status, which it totally does, and I love the fact that it does. Anakinjmt 23:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I totally agree with you Maury. I was disgusted by the absurd number of citations in the article. Some were even repeated. This is empirical extremism at its worst. Tcaudilllg 23:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
There were a few places where adjacent references could be cleaned up, and I took care of as many instances as I could find. However, although overcitation is something that should be avoided, and adjacent repeated references unnecessary, I'm frankly a bit confused why people find an urge to describe it in such strong terms. There are a lot of distinct sources and such used in the article, and, although obvious things such as basic gameplay controls don't strictly need third-party sources, it is currently preferred to use them for citation where possible. — TKD::Talk 23:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
So Maury you are asking for us to add "why the game is good"? what kind of nonsense is that? we can't influence the reader's opinion of the game, there is already a section detailing the game's reception that is as far as we can go without pushing POV, as to your other points they are minimal and would hardly cost this article its FA possition, but I suppose you would like other "trash" to be featured on the main page. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm suggesting the article needs to be cleaned up, reorganized to collect similar sections, clipped of information that is better left in "making of" articles offboard the wiki, and have a major cleanup of the references, which is 2/3rds as long as the article itself and is attached to non-controversial comments that never needed a ref. Maury 13:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there are professional commentaries and columns out there as to why games are considered good. Certainly there are for HALO. I do think a criticism section would be useful for games in general. (and these games are criticized routinely by professional journalists.) I for one would find such information very informative.

EDIT: Now that I think about it, I've never yet seen a magazine article that really discussed why games are good. So nevermind. Tcaudilllg 00:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Consensus has always been that "making-of" information is absolutely required to satisfy the comprehensiveness criterion of the featured article criteria. As for organization, this is actually the first time that I've seen a complaint about the Gameplay/Synopsis/[Soundtrack]/Development/Reception division that is pretty much the way that most featured video game articles are laid out (and, no, this isn't an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument: it's a statement about the consensus way that these types of articles are generally written; people tend to find this division more natural). If we exclude gameplay, many film articles are laid out that way, too. There is some wiggle room whether Development goes before Gameplay/Synopsis, but, in many cases, stating what the media is about tends to lend more context for the Development discussion. I suppose that you could argue for organizing things chronologically under one big "History" section with subsections (is that what you're essentially advocating?), but the majority of people will probably find that unnatural. I personally wouldn't mind it, but, given the current practice here on Wikipedia, there'd have to be demonstrable consensus for that change of style. — TKD::Talk 13:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
There are too many references? Maybe if there were 5 references for each statement, but there aren't. James086Talk | Email 06:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
WHAT THE HELL????? Only a quarter of the references in this article are required to affirm the material. Tcaudilllg 23:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Exactly my complaint. Do we really need a ref on "you can look up and down"? Do we even need that statement at all? In a broader sense, do we need separate references for statements that are covered in other references? It's just ref padding. And the FA req thread is all about refs. Talk about forest for the trees... Maury (talk) 04:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps the statement about being able to look up and down does not, strictly speaking, require an explicit citation to be verifiable, but the reason that it is common practice to include such citations to primary-source material is to prove beyond a doubt that they are not idiosyncratic observations of editors. Although this ability should be obvious, it's far too common for editors to extrapolate a little too far into the realm of interpretation, so the citation serves as a point of grounding. I don't see a point in removing the citation once it's there. And, yes, the statement about being able to look and down is, I think, necessary, if Wikipedia is to cater to a general audience. It is not a given that video games, even first-person shooters, allow that degree of freedom. Doom didn't have that ability.
To say that there is "ref padding" is a bit of an mischaracterization, esppecially given that the editors who worked on the FA push had to start from this revision of the article and work to find sources and clean it up. Content issues were discussed during the FAC nomination, so it's unfair to say that the article passed FA solely because it was well-referenced (since a single actionable objection can cause the FAC nomination to fail). — TKD::Talk 11:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Most videogame articles don't get featured article status. As more appear, I think you'll be seeing a lot more criticism of the current guidelines and the "consensus".
There has been criticism for a while; people just weren't aware of where to put it. But now that it's up front and in our face, it's like a slap right to our faces that the guidelines are being interpreted so rigidly.
Don't misunderstand: it's not the guidelines we oppose, but rather the extremes they are being taken to. Tcaudilllg 23:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

i just want to say you all do a good job on this web site. the information here is just a tresure chest of information! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.199.196.226 (talk) 19:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

If all else fails during Main Page mayhem...

Just as a note to other editors, this is a known stable, good version of the page that can be used for reference if the frequency of edits causes trouble after midnight UTC. — TKD::Talk 13:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Post-TFA diff, for the interested. — TKD::Talk 00:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Image on Main Page

Why is the image on the main page that of Bill Gates posing with Master Chief? Shouldn't it be the box cover? Wikipediarules2221 01:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

No the box cover is a Fair Use image, I did suggest cropping the image to exclude Gates though. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Could have found a better image though. Ednel 02:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ednel (talk • contribs)

For modern copyrighted works, the choices are limited because most things that portray the work sufficiently clearly would be considered derivative works. — TKD::Talk 02:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Why Now?

This article is the featured article just short time after the release of Halo 3?? At best, one would think this was motivated by fans of the game wanting to help it succeed and gain recognition. At worst, one would think it was motivated by someone with money to gain from Halo 3 sales. Radishes 18:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it was featured because it was the sixth anniversary of the game's release (thus a relevant date) and the article had been waiting for over a year. - Caribbean~H.Q. 18:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests for more information on how the daily featured articles are scheduled and what considerations are taken. — TKD::Talk 18:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Certainly both valid points, but neither rebuts in any way what I've said. Although, I suppose nothing will rebut the fact that the time of this featured article and the time of Halo 3's prime marketing coincide. It's just something for folks to think about. I could really go conspiracy theory here and suggest that someone Anonymously Contributed an amount to the pledge drive to get this on the front page. Although I don't believe that myself, it's still interesting how things happen the way they do. Radishes 19:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Considering that Halo 3 was released weeks ago, and the big marketing push was in the weeks leading up to it, I'd say that it's just a silly conspiracy theory. --PresN 20:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, you do know that Master Chief was the one on the grassy knoll, right? --Jaysweet 20:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


Control

Halo is credited with presenting one of the first successful sets of controls for a first-person shooter on a video game console.[18]

This is makes it sound as though the two stick configuration of all console fps was pioneered by Halo.

Going to the article it cites, which is just a review, you get this

"Goldeneye and Perfect Dark aside, first person shooters haven’t exactly been received with open arms by console players over the years. The first reason is clearly control. Hardcore FPS fans point out (quite correctly) that there is no substitute for the classic mouse and keyboard control scheme that PC first person shooters utilize. Additionally, consoles have traditionally been behind the power curve when compared to PC’s of the same generation. Hence, console ports of FPS classics like Quake 2 and Unreal Tournament were seen as clearly inferior to the original PC games. Given that history, it is surprising that the most heavily hyped and most sought after launch title of Microsoft’s new Xbox is indeed a first person shooter. Halo, luckily, is more than able to overcome the limitations that plagued earlier releases and provide an experience unequaled to this point by a console first person shooter."

This says nothing of it being the first to do this, or anything like that, just that it's "an experience unequaled to this point by a console first person shooter" this is a comment by a reviewer on a site i've never heard of before.

The control scheme using two sticks had been around for at least a year before Halo was released. The first experience i had with 2 control sticks was on Timesplitters for PS2 which came out a full year earlier, and had basically the same control layout.

--Pollard666 21:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I wondered about that sentence as well. I think I remember using the two-stick configuration as far back as Turok, if I'm not mistaken... I assumed the link said something about the sensitivity being well-balanced or something, but it appears it does not. I agree with removing that sentence. --Jaysweet 21:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I removed it for now. I wouldn't be surprised if a more well-known publication did praise the control scheme, though; if so, that should be added, but with more controlled wording. — TKD::Talk 23:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't have time to add it now but take a look at [1]. James086Talk | Email 04:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Did I miss it?

Where do we describe why this game is considered to be so fantastic? --P3d0 23:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

uh... try reception and impact? David Fuchs (talk) 23:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't see it. That section is just a parade of opinions on Halo, but never explains why everyone loved it. ---- P3d0 (talk) 16:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
The "why" is probably something intangible, or difficult to describe in a short quotation. Personally speaking, there is no one feature of Halo that is as singularly impressive as, say, the gravity gun in Half-Life 2, but Halo succeeds through the combination of many well-polished elements (setting, storyline, weapon balance, NPC AI, etc.). This "success-on-many-levels" may be why the article does not contain the statement you seek within the lavish praise cited. Cheers, ---- Plumbago (talk) 16:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
P3d0 has a point in that it might be worthwhile to try to incorporate some of these specific reasons if multiple cited articles have similar reasons. I might have time to look at it this weekend. — TKD::Talk 21:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I've added a sentence with some specifics. It's possibly worth expanding a bit more, but, since the all of the reviews are quite long and cite most of these aspects, too much expansion would make the relevant material repetitive and possibly too detailed. — TKD::Talk 01:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, that's definitely a good start. --P3d0 (talk) 00:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

←I just picked up a book called Halo Effect, a collection of essays about various aspects of the Halo series. I'll be incorporating material into here gradually. — TKD::Talk 09:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

On that note, what is innovative about it? All of the Halo articles talk about all the innovations Halo made that were adopted by other games, but don't mention any of them; does anyone have any examples of what new concepts it introduced? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ban Bridges (talk • contribs) 08:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

See this diff for examples that I added. Also see this. Note that the relevant information in the second diff explicitly states that Halo was not the first FPS game to distance itself from a dungeon crawl, but it continued and emphasized the trend. — TKD::Talk 20:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Halo Demo ~ November 20th

Halo Demo (A Page I created) was suggested to be merged here but then deleted. Why was it deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stealth500 (talk • contribs) 11:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It's possible that the information was moved here and then the article deleted, instead of an actual merge. Anakinjmt (talk) 13:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
It was redirected here because it was unsourced, and separate articles for demo versions of a game are not the norm, unless they are for some reason covered in multiple reliable secondary sources. — TKD::Talk 18:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
He's not asking why it was merged, but why was it deleted. Anakinjmt (talk) 00:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
The article itself was redirected, neither merged nor outright deleted. As for why none of the content was not merged, it was entirely unsourced and contained a lot of game-guide material. The only thing that'd really be worth possibly noting is that a demo version exists and is limited in scope, but I'm not aware of any other video game featured or good article that notes the existence of a demo version. I'm willing to be proven wrong on this point, however. — TKD::Talk 04:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok, So my article was skipped over because it didn't have external and internal links and it had a "Game Guide"..... Is there a way to bring it back and make it better? I think ti would really be good for Wikipedia to have. I know of a few forums, and can dig up some websites for the external links, and internal links I can get from where it is now redirected to..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stealth500 (talk • contribs) 11:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
The odds of having an article for a demo of a game and having it last are pretty low. Finding good sources for info on the demo might be worth including in the article. However, I'd be very careful when using forums. In fact, I would say to just avoid them. Very, very, very rarely can forums be used as reliable sources, and any other websites that you use should be reliable. Fansites would most likely not work. Finding something on IGN or Gamepro would work (well, IGN at least, I'm personally not so sure of Gamepro anymore). Anakinjmt (talk) 13:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Last that I was aware, GamePro was still a reliable source. GameSpot also works. Avoid forums and wikis. — TKD::Talk 17:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I know a couple of forums that are pretty good but that doesn't matter to much. Is there a way to remake that article but take the gaming stuff out just make it an overview? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stealth500 (talk • contribs) 02:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
First, determine how much reliably sourced material you have. Bear in mind the level of detail that game articles on Wikipedia go into; this article, for example, doesn't even list all of the weapons available, because the current consensus is that's considered straying too far into the realm of game-guide detail, and unnecessary for describing the game in general terms. The amount and nature of material out there determines whether a subject merits a separate article, a mention in a broader-scope article, or none at all.
If you want to work on a draft article relatively unimpeded, you can set up a subpage of your user space, like User:Stealth500/Halo Demo. Just make sure that you don't actually place this draft into any categories, and don't use any fair-use images. Personally, I'm still skeptical that this is worth mentioning, but I'm willing to be proven wrong here. — TKD::Talk 03:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I could try making the page that way, but I think it would be usefull to have. If I was to make it how do I set that up? Also what type of thin gs would I put on it? just take the stuff about guns and stuff out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stealth500 (talk • contribs) 11:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I kinda see Gamepro in the same light as the NY Times in terms of quality reporting. But, that's just me, and for general use, it is reliable. On a side not Stealth, can you make sure to sign your comments by adding ~~~~? Thanks. Anakinjmt (talk) 13:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Anakinjinjmt I was already asked that by someone else and I have started doing it :). --Stealth500 (talk) 13:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
So where do I start this? and Can I? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stealth500 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
←Do you see the red link that I created for you above (User:Stealth500/Halo Demo)? If you create that page, it's a subpage of your user space. One of the purposes of user subpages is to allow users to work on drafts of articles that they don't consider ready for the main article space at the first cut. If you want to try to gather material, you can do it there if you prefer to do it on-wiki. — TKD::Talk 23:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Let me add that due to Gamespot's totally unfair firing of Jeff Gerstmann, I trust Gamespot even less. Anakinjmt 14:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion archive missing

Archive #4 is missing from the archive box. Could someone add it there (I don't know how)? --Mika1h (talk) 19:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I would but I can't seem to find it. --Talk to Stealth500 (talk) 21:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Halo_%28video_game%29/Archive_4 --Mika1h (talk) 19:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I did it. The archive box works by looking for "Talk:Halo: Combat Evolved/Archive 4" but since the archive was at "Talk:Halo (video game)/Archive 4" (from before it was moved) it wasn't recognising it. I just made a redirect from Talk:Halo: Combat Evolved/Archive 4 to Talk:Halo (video game)/Archive 4. James086Talk | Email 04:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)