Talk:Space Hulk (computer game)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Warhammer 40,000, an attempt to expand, update, and improve all articles relating to Warhammer 40,000 on Wikipedia. You may edit this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives for the project.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Good article Space Hulk (computer game) has been listed as one of the Everyday life good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
December 29, 2007 Good article nominee Listed

Contents

[edit] Sound effects

What citation is needed about the PC Speaker sounds ? God damn, just play the game and hear them!!!! Use Dosbox if you don't have a old computer, just install it with "PC Speaker" sound and you will hear actual speech using the PC Speaker instead of the common blip sounds. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.232.8.46 (talk • contribs) .

Verifiable information is needed, in accordance with Wikipedia's five pillars. Cheers --Pak21 19:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Verifiable information : the game can be downloaded here -> http://www.the-underdogs.info/game.php?gameid=1017 and is playable under a real DOS machine, or emulated using DosBox 0.65 or new. So, install it with PC Speaker sound option, and hear by yourself the speech, and sound using only the PC speaker (not just typical *blip*blip* sound, but real speech, you can hear the commander speeching "brother marines..." and such). I cant imagine any more verifiable information than the game itself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.232.211.93 (talk • contribs) .

That would be original research and is not allowed on Wikipedia; again, please read about Wikipedia's five pillars. One example of what would be acceptable would be a review of the game in a major magazine which comments on the sound effects in the game. Cheers --Pak21 10:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Wouldn't that be original research as well? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.200.253.9 (talk • contribs) .
No. Original research is "a term used on Wikipedia to refer to material added to articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been published already by a reputable source." --Pak21 18:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Game Review and Facts

Ok, in one of my travels to my parent's house, I found a The One Amiga magazine, from around feb/199x that has a review of the game. I took the facts from there. I also have the original game, with box and all, so I took some facts from there too. Image:space-hulk-game-review.jpg—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kronoman (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Difficulty

Would it be inappropriate to say how hard that this game this game was. Carl 05:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

If you have a verifiable, reliable source for this statement, it would be appropriate (I can't imagine it would be too hard to find one, as I remember this being mentioned at the time). If you don't, it wouldn't. Cheers --Pak21 08:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First FPS?

It is written: "The game was one of the first person shooters". I suppose the author meant first first person shooters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.226.214.34 (talk) 20:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2007 Rewrite

Hi, I am going to rewrite this article to conform to Wikipedia and Video Games Wikiproject guidelines in the coming few days. The article will be changed to the following structure.

  • Lead
  • Gameplay
  • Plot and settings
    • Characters
    • Story
  • Development
  • Reception
  • References
  • External links

Jappalang (talk) 01:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like an excellent idea, I look forward to seeing it. --Falcorian (talk) 07:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay it is up, a few notes for those planning to improve the article.

  • The plot and setting section is based on the game materials themselves. As such, you would note that fluff regarding the Imperium, Marines, and Genestealers from the Horus Heresy and Tyranids are excluded (the game materials are from 1989-1993). I have written this section up to primarily follow the game materials without significant contradiction to current fluff. Anyone wishing to edit this section please keep that in mind. This is after all the article on the computer game, not the Warhammer 40,000 universe, so focus on what is presented in the game and its source materials.
  • Follow the Wikipedia and Video Game Wikiproject guides please.
  • Additional verifiable sources regarding the game development is appreciated.
  • Please write in the British English standards as this game is developed by teams in the United Kingdom

Jappalang (talk) 00:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:VG assessment

Another article? You never cease to amaze me...

Clyde's already re-assessed it to B-class, low-importance, a rating I agree with. When assessing your major re-writes, changes those values are half the work as the list of things that still need doing is so short! However, before pressing that GAC button you should expand the lead per WP:LS: there currently isn't any information there about the reception the game received. Also, the last portion of the Story section appears to be unsourced - you could just use in-game dialogue if nothing immediate jumps out from a Google search. Fix those problems and you should be good to go. Una LagunaTalk 09:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I have added a very summarized sentence to the lead for the Reception section. I have also added one of the game manual, which chronicles the campaign's story, as a reference for the Story section. Would that sufficiently address the concerns? Jappalang (talk) 14:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

An excellent article! Just a few concerns before I pass this as a Good Article:

  1. Every time I review a video game article I get into a differing argument about whether or not the Gameplay section should have citations or not and whether or not things that are inherent to the game need to be cited or not. I personally think that they should be, as I don't exactly see more citing references as inherently detrimental to Wikipedia's reputation, but I have heard reasonable arguments in the other direction. My new policy is to just go with whatever the author has chosen and let the good folks down at Featured Articles deal with it if it gets that far. I do insist, however, that one of these two methods be chosen and used uniformly throughout the Gameplay section. Since you've chosen to cite the Gameplay section, then I believe it should be fully cited, as it is more a question of style than citation. That's a lot of words to say that I think the second half of the second paragraph of Gameplay needs to be cited. The same logic goes for the "Story" section. An instruction manual, or even in-game dialog, however, is an acceptable way of citing this material.
    The "Story" section was entirely referenced from pages 30-43 of the "The World of Space Hulk — Missions" manual (ref #10). I thought it would be unnecessary to inline-cite each following sentence. My usual style is to put the citation at the first instance where it is needed, so following exceptional sentences would be referring to the preceding cite. Is this acceptable? Jappalang (talk) 09:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
    You don't have to inline cite each sentence (that'd be nuts), but it seems to make more sense to cite the last instance of where it is needed. That way, you're saying "everything before this is covered by this citation." Cheers, CP 18:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
    Y Done Additional magazine and manual reference added at end of paragraphs. Jappalang (talk) 22:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. "Briefings on the background and objectives, along with a small preview map are given before missions, and the player can customise the squads' armaments, e.g. close range Lightning Claws, devastating long range Assault Cannons, etc, for certain campaign missions." (Gameplay) Terms such as "e.g. and "etc" are not very encyclopedic and should be reworded in full prose format.
    Y Done The term "etc" is reworked into "such as" prose. Jappalang (talk) 09:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. "Amiga Force complained trying to co-ordinate five-men squads to fend off these quick enemies was just frustration in the making as one single mistake gets all of them wiped out in an instant." (Reception) requires a citation.
    I am using a style where if the quoted review is in the review table on the right, inline citation is left out. Whereas if quoted reviews are not in the table (or the quote's source is not mentioned), they would be inline-cited. Hence the sentence in question would be from the Amiga Force review in the table which has the citation. Is this acceptable? Jappalang (talk) 09:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
    I don't see it as hurting to toss repeat the reference again since, if it has a ref name, all you need to do is type <ref name="refname"/> and all it does is add ^x to the ref that's already there. It allows the reader to access the citation directly and doesn't really increase the size of the choppiness (since it's at the end of a paragraph anyways) that much. Cheers, CP 18:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
    Y Done Additional magazine reference added at end of paragraph. Jappalang (talk) 22:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

To allow for these changes to be made, I am putting the article on hold for a period of up to seven days, after which it may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work thus far. Cheers, CP 04:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! I will now be passing the article as a Good Article. Congratulations, and thank you for your hard work! Cheers, CP 03:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)