Talk:High Voltage Software
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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. | |
| Low | This article is on a subject of Low priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0. | |
|
VG To-do:
|
||
[edit] Quantum 3
Shouldn't we add a section based on the Quantum3 engine? I know that's what many people are interested in NinjaRooster (talk) 19:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV
Subjective information without citations should be removed. Example,
"With an overall poor track record" - this needs to be cited or removed.
"High Voltage Software has struggled to secure a positive relationship with the gaming community, and publishers alike." Needs citation or removal. Sub ubi (talk) 09:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Citing can not be done due to the global nature of the review scores across all products. Evidence of the "struggle" is evident by the review average of 66% across all products. The poor track record was a reference to the review scores as well, which were added to the products table. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Partyhats (talk • contribs) 18:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Your definition of "poor" is subjective. The scale, 0% being the worst and 100% being the best, shows most of their games above 50%, denoting an above average score, and is on-par with major studios seen here. Unless you can cite a source claiming HVS has a poor track record, please leave your personal research for a blog. Sub ubi (talk) 23:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Poor is subjective, what are you on? How many college graduates do you know that had an average of 66% in all of their classes? Probably not too many. In terms of today's review standards, anything below a 70% begins to read the poor range. Just to satisfy you though, I altered some of the text to reflect less of an emphasis on poor scores. People can make their own judgements. Oh and that link you gave, that's for publishers, but nice try. Last I checked, High Voltage Software isn't funding games by other developers, then putting them into pretty boxes and shipping them out to distributors. High Voltage is a developer, not a publisher. The publishers have to absorb the ratings of all games that they develop, or the studios that they work with develop. Of course they're going to have a harder time maintaining higher averages. High Voltage Software as a studio is much more in control of how their games are made. I don't know where you get off commenting on slander by the way. It's not like I said that they sacrifice kittens each time they get a low review score. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Partyhats (talk • contribs) 18:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- You seem to be taking this personally by your accusations that I'm either on drugs or an employee. I'm actually a wikipedia reader who stumbled on a page that doesn't meet wikipedia standards, and I'd like to help. Here are my suggestions: Instead of POV words like "poor", just state the average review score of 66%, and let the reader assign a judgement. Also, claims of poor sales as well as consequences of poor sales, such as not obtaining sequels, need to be cited. Remember that wikipedia does not allow original research. I've gone ahead and made those changes, and removed other POV comments as well. Please read NPOV as that's where I'm getting my information. Sub ubi (talk) 10:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Poor is subjective, what are you on? How many college graduates do you know that had an average of 66% in all of their classes? Probably not too many. In terms of today's review standards, anything below a 70% begins to read the poor range. Just to satisfy you though, I altered some of the text to reflect less of an emphasis on poor scores. People can make their own judgements. Oh and that link you gave, that's for publishers, but nice try. Last I checked, High Voltage Software isn't funding games by other developers, then putting them into pretty boxes and shipping them out to distributors. High Voltage is a developer, not a publisher. The publishers have to absorb the ratings of all games that they develop, or the studios that they work with develop. Of course they're going to have a harder time maintaining higher averages. High Voltage Software as a studio is much more in control of how their games are made. I don't know where you get off commenting on slander by the way. It's not like I said that they sacrifice kittens each time they get a low review score. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Partyhats (talk • contribs) 18:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Your definition of "poor" is subjective. The scale, 0% being the worst and 100% being the best, shows most of their games above 50%, denoting an above average score, and is on-par with major studios seen here. Unless you can cite a source claiming HVS has a poor track record, please leave your personal research for a blog. Sub ubi (talk) 23:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Another NPOV problem that glares out to me is the section regarding layoffs. It is common practice for any company to "spin" such news announcements in an attempt to put a positive face on what is ultimately a negative indicator of a company's health. You don't layoff people when you're raking in tons of dough. But the author here seems bent on implying the layoff was in fact an attempt to provide a scapegoat for what ever quality issues the company may have had in the past. I am removing these interpretations of the event while leaving the facts and quotes intact. Sir Smedley (talk) 21:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
