Talk:SOCOM 3: U.S. Navy SEALs

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.
Low This article is on a subject of Low priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
VG To-do:

It was suggested that this article should be renamed SOCOM 3: U.S. Navy SEALs. The vote is shown below: This page needs to be moved. The Socom game series is no longer using roman numerals

Agreed. mpiff 19:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


Two things, based on the "bugs" left in the game.

One: The door sound happens even if there is no door in the map. It's just a random thing.

Two: The issue where a player name does not show up is believed to be intentional. It's a realism factor, like target recognition. You wouldn't be able to tell where or who your teammates were from a certain distance, so it forces you to communicate rather than just follow a name. It adds a level of difficulty to the game, but keeps the realism and stresses the need for teamwork and communication. Take these as opinions or whatever you'd like, but I believe at least it should be added to the description of the "bug."

As well, I'm going to add a link to the developers' blog (http://socomblog.typepad.com/) to further answer any questions, and provide an extra resource. Rjfleming84 15:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the points made by Rjfleming84. The focus of this series is teamwork, although few people actually work as a team. Also, this page could use a description of game modes both official and unofficial (see the SOCOM 2 article). Asdquefty 01:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe a list of guns available in the game could be drawn up. [ming]

Contents

[edit] Major revision needed

I'm gonna stay up for a while and take out all the vandalism that has accumulated over time, and also reword a bit of info i found in html comments, since it is currently too garbled to understand, and in the wrong place anyway. Dboyz-x.etown 07:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


  • EDIT

Done. Or at least I think so. If I could have else someone review the article, may we remove the Clean-up tag?

Also added back external links. I think this article at least deserves a B-class now.

Still needs sources though. Dboyz-x.etown 09:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BUgs and rank up

The sections covering bugs and ranking up need to be rewritten in a more encyclopedic way. -- Asdquefty 22:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More in depth in the glitches

i was just wondering if anyone wanted to me to go more in depth for the glitches [what they do, what the glitcher sees, what normal players see etc.]

I'm an ex-glitcher so I know most of the glitches


I removed some of the bugs they have fixed. A section cataloging past bugs should be created.


Hi I am wiseblood87 and I just added map-merge to the gliching section, and although it needs revision (I am not good at writing) the glitch described is indeed real and I can verify it. I am writing this to explain that it is a slightly obscure glitch due to being released from one source and it can be easily overlooked as an under the map glitch, however, it is not. I will be willing to verify its authenticity to another witness on the game itself email me your Socom 3 name (wiseblood_x@yahoo.com) so we can set up a demonstration room. thanks


[edit] major clean-up

I just redid most of the 1st half of this entire article, splitting the single player (of which there was none before) and editing the online gameplay section. i added all the gameplay types, pretty much copied them from the socom 3 booklet from the game. If anyone can please change the bugs section, its pretty bad. i don't think its necessary to name all those glitches either.

I will be going through and trying to fix the broken/sloppy links throughout this article. The links section also looks pretty bad and there is no links given to the previous versions of SOCOM, nor the upcoming Combined Assault. (Cablebfg 21:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC))


[edit] Game Monitors

There is a part under Online account verification that says The cheaters can also use credit cards to log on and freely exploit game glitches, since no one monitors matches. This is untrue for the fact that there is a dedicated team of online moderators who monitor matches every day. They have the "MOD" clan tag and are in the "MODERATOR" Clan. These are official moderators appointed by SCEA. I propose that the last section of that line be dropped, to read something like The cheaters can also use credit cards to log on and freely exploit game glitches. or reworded to sound better. --Bakudai 04:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Sony Wouldent lie in there own TOS. the clan is prob the same people who complain about the glitchers on the games message board. And decided to make a clan called MOD just to scare people or make themselfs feel important.

I played Socom 3 for more than a year and never once saw a clan of "moderators." I agree with the person above me that if people do actually have that tag, they are just a group of guys who wanted to scare people. Seeing as how there really aren't any consequences to cheating- apart from getting voted out, I highly doubt that there are any Sony appointed MOD's. Cheating is not as rampant in Socom 3 as it is in 2, but it still is a problem, especially since there is little penalty for doing so. If we payed a monthly fee to play I could believe it, but since we don't (and other larger problems such as great lag and an unstable network are constant)- I must say, this whole MOD's protecting and watching over us thing is not true.


Back in Socom II there was a person who I remember used illicit means to get a long name implying he was an Admin. People do it all the time.

[edit] Section 3.3

This section is opinion with no citations at all OAP boba 12:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weapons List

Maybe I am losing my memory, but I recall adding, personally, a list of all SEAL and terrorist weapons with viable links to all of their real-life counterparts. It is futile to go through the whole change log to see what ever became of it, but if someone wants to be nice enough to recreate it that would be great.

Someone added an HTML comment to the article and never closed it, effectively wiping out everything from the beginning of the weapons list down (including refercences, see also, etc.). I don't know for what reason this comment was introduced, so I have properly closed it after the weapons section. Tzepish 20:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Assessment

A request was made for re-assessment of this article. Assessed as: Low-importance Start-class --User:Krator (t c) 21:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Points for change

  • Use new style references - currently the numbering of references is off. See here.
  • The first paragraph of 'general gameplay' belongs in the introduction, not here.
  • Get rid of the list in General Gameplay and only state the major, notable, or revolutionary changes. I don't care for 'character movement features', 'set game modes on maps' and 'new interfaces'. This list is much too in-depth and only notable for fans. Of the list, only the fact that one can operate vehicles is notable enough.
  • The single campaign section is horrible. Get rid of the bullet point and list structure, and just write two-three paragraphs containing the information already there, and removing information irrelevant to an encyclopaedia. For example, don't write that you lose when you abort the mission, but do write that you lose a mission when your team-mates die. The mission success things can just be one sentence, like: "Stealth, accuracy and teamwork are all taken into account to calculate the mission success rating." Currently this section is way too long for the amount of content present. Writing about all team-mates is unnecessary and can be deleted. If one is notable, keep it, but with the current information none are.
  • Scrap 'Player Reaction' if you can find no references for the claims there. What is needed anyway is a rename to 'Reception' or 'Criticism', with reviews from Gamespot/IGN/PC Gamer (referenced!).
  • The cheating online section is not notable, too long, and ill-referenced. A short sentence in a proper introductory paragraph for the section could read: "Cheating online is common, especially in unranked maps where cheaters are less likely to be voted out of the room. Some make use of aimbots."
  • The ranking system is not notable to anyone not playing the game. Get rid of it, and briefly notice the existence of ranks and that they're based on military (naval?) ranks.
  • Get rid of the bugs section. Just delete it, or email it to the developers so they can patch the game. It's just not something to include on Wikipedia.
  • Cut down the amount of external links, and ask yourself the following: "Which of these would be the most useful for someone who has never heard of it before reading this article." - and keep those links.

[edit] Good points

  • The second and third paragraph of 'General Gameplay'. They just need some editing and more linking to make it understandable to a layman in FPS games.
  • Unlike other FPS articles, I think the game mode section for multiplayer is good due to the large amount of modes not present anywhere else. Do try to find links for the game modes.
  • Online account verification section is good, but could be placed in the 'online play' section rather than a separate section.
  • Good trivia.