Talk:TimeSplitters 2

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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article is on a subject of Mid priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
This article has an archived VG peer review that may contain ideas for improvement.
VG To-do:

Contents

[edit] Move to Wikibooks?

This article is essentially just a list of features (characters, levels, weapons) in the game. These lists are more appropriate on Wikibooks. --Nick RTalk 10:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SBP90

"SBP90 machinegun, A P90, from farscape, but with a scope."

I changed farscape (which almost never had human weapons) to stargate (in which the p90 is often use by the main team), why does everyone get the shows mixed up?Joeyjojo

Unless I'm mistaken, the P90 is a real firearm. I'd have to look it up though.--Vince Skrapits 01:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Well the Soviet47 is an AK47 with a granade launcher attached.Qwerasdfzxcvvcxz

[edit] Trivia

"Though many enjoy it, some criticized the game for being too much like GoldenEye 007." This is POV and not trivia in any way, shape, or form. I removed it. MafiaCapo 00:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I also question, "The gate which the characters go back and forth through time is an obvious referance to "Stargate".", but I haven't removed it.MafiaCapo 00:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Or...Stargete(sux) copied timesplitters. I dont care which was first its actually prolly just a common idea.Qwerasdfzxcvvcxz

Think you'll find that the StarGate (1994) script was around before that of the TimeSplitters2 (2002) script. Opinions shouldn't matter on an encyclopedia. Only facts. Manix

Well said. This article is becoming more of a forum, though, isn't it? Don'tClickHerechat / what i've done / email 21:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zones Mode - Unreal Tournament?

Is the Zones mode a variation of some game type in Unreal Tournament? Didn't want to make the edit straight away in case I'm wrong DD2006 18:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MyGamesNow Link

After looking at the link provided, the only TimeSplitters content i could find on the front page, was a link to someone elses website. --Manix 07:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plasma Autorifle

Based of the Plasma Rifle and Plasma Grenade from Halo?


-hah doubt it

Obviously. Doppelganger E 17:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stargate references, anyone?

Let's go through this one. The rotating chevrons on the Timegate, which resembles a Stargate, the way that symbols are put in in sequence (seen in the opening movie) to establish a portal, the kawhoosh effect seen in the main menu as a portal appears, the P90 being used, if a tad vamped up... Would this be worthy of mention in the article? --Bobitha 21:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that just the way every freaking portal ever has been depicted? If you can't cite it, that's going to be too much OR for my tastes.--SeizureDog 00:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, no, not really, and the Kawhoosh is the big one. Its a recurring motif in the Stargate universe, and its a depiction of the Stargate's power. I'm fairly sure that's relevant. As for the DHD like device to go to different times... I just thought it could be worthy of mention that the obvious similarities are overlooked in the article. And could you explain what you mean by OR? --Bobitha 17:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
By OR he meant Original Research. 87.74.127.87 18:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cheat Mode

It's said that TS2 has a cheat mode, but Free Radical refuse to release the secret. Is this true, and has anyone discovered the cheat code? Kelvingreen 22:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I only ask because I can't think of any other situation in which a cheat mode was confirmed, but never released. Seems worth mentioning. Kelvingreen 13:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
You're right. Maybe it should be mentioned somewhere in the article.Wi Account ki 16:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Improvements over the original?

That section seems a little bland compared to the others. Do you think we should keep it or at least re-organize it Wi Account ki 06:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean, maybe it should be renamed to additions instead of improvements. I'm open to suggestions. Goldbringer 19:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
It's now..."changes..." improvements is POV I think. —Mitaphane ?|! 01:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you guys understood what I meant. I wasn't talking about the name of the section. Like the assessment said, it should either be changed from a list or added to the gameplay section.Wi Account ki 06:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] CVG Assessment

I usually defer to other assessors as I have very little experience in rating articles, but I'll try to be as fair and helpful as possible here.

Good

  • Lead is a good length
  • References given

Needs Improvement

  • The article has all the sections that are standard for a videogame article, but they need to be expanded upon. Although it is in list form, the Trivia section is longer than the Plot, Development, or Reception
  • Needs more prose. The article tends to rely upon lists, which is fine for a Trivia section but shouldn't exist for the section titled 'Changes from the Original' (which itself may be better suited under the Gameplay section)
  • Self-referential in parts. This is, of course, hard to point out specifically, but reading through the article I felt that I needed to do additional research on my own about TimeSplitters to understand the article; this should not be the case.
  • Copy-Editing Needed. Carefully go through the article and ensure that every paragraph is cohesive, NPOV, and clear.
  • More references needed; as it exists the article is quite short, but as you expand be sure to add your sources.

Take a look at The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask to see a Featured Article Hope that helps. If you feel that it's unfair, go ahead and renominate the article and another CVG assessor can offer his/her thoughts.

Remained as Start-Class -Digiwrld1 22:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I just read through the article quickly and I noticed a lot of use of the second person. Eg "You", "you're", "your" need to be changed to "the player" etc. Crimsonfox 10:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for assessing this. I did some of the things you mentioned. I expanded on some of the sections you mentioned. I got rid of the Changes over the Original section since its information can be found elsewhere in the article. To Crimsonfox, you're right, I should change that soon (not right now 'cause I don't feel like it).Wi Account ki 05:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:VG Assessment

  • The lead is actually of appropriate length, something rare in video game articles.
  • Some things need to be changed, though. Remove the external link, and change the prose to fit a more encyclopaedic tone. An example of the current bad state is the last sentence: "but it is not known when".
  • Plot is good, though uncited. Plot sections can be referenced by citing specific text from the game itself or the game manual. Length and prose are good enough.
  • Gameplay starts out well-written, but gradually turns into the game guide information often seen in bad video game articles.
  • Remove the list in Arcade.
  • Remove the distinction between modes. These are not specific to the game and irrelevant - what a 'story' or 'arcade' mode is should not be explained here.
  • The whole section has no citations. Look up some reviews of the game, and see what they write about the gameplay, then use them to reference the article.
  • Gameplay needs copy-editing.
  • Development is solid.
  • Reception is too short - discuss what some specific reviewers have written if not enough reviews exist. Also discuss pre-game release reception (previews).
  • Remove trivia.
  • Remove fansites from external links.

Rating changed to Start (not enough references for B), Low. --User:Krator (t c) 18:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:VG Assessment (2)

From a request at WP:VG/A. Note that the article is already B-class, and that my comments are more in-depth because of that. Obtaining GA/A/FA ratings requires attention to detail.

  • The statement that Timesplitters 2 is similar to Goldeneye 007 needs a citation.Y Done
  • Try to find citations for the Gameplay section. "The game itself" should be avoided - try reviews. Usually gameplay is extensively covered there. Previews may also be useful, as they tend to focus on innovative features.Y Done
  • Single and multi player sections need images.N Not done (yet)
  • Explain jargon. Terms like dual wield, spawn, playable characters, unlocking game features, capture the flag, powerups, health packs and game mode are not common in English outside the area of video games. I understand them, so will many gamers - but other potential readers of this article will not. Explain them, or better: avoid them.Y Done (I think I got all of them)
  • Many things very common throughout the genre (game modes, selecting weapons, "at the end of the match, results are shown") are explained in detail in this article. Consider removing some of these. It will improve readability, and make some paragraphs less redundant.
  • The Plot section contains some in-universe style descriptions.Y Done I think; I just found one; which others are there?)
  • My previous comments on Reception still apply: "Reception is too short - discuss what some specific reviewers have written if not enough reviews exist. Also discY DoneussOr is it still too short? pre-game release reception (previews)."

Kept B-class. Raised importance to Mid as it seems the series is significant. --User:Krator (t c) 14:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

If further comments are wanted, as I judge from a note on my talk page, please mark the appropriate points above with a {{done}} template when finished with them. It is easier for me to re-assess the article then. --User:Krator (t c) 22:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I marked them. Tell me if I incorrectly marked any of them and if there's anything else to improve the article.--Wi Account ki

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:TS2 Spacestation.jpg

Image:TS2 Spacestation.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WTF? The GameCube version had the minigames

I clearly remember playing anaconda and some helicopter game, so I removed that which said it was a PS2 exclusive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phazon eater (talk • contribs) 07:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It didn't say it was PS2 exclusive. It said the PS2 version had a smaller playing field. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wi Account ki (talk • contribs) 06:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:VG assessment

This is still B-Class, though I'd say it isn't too far from GA-class. Here are some ideas to get you there:

  • Not all images have adequate fair use rationales. WP:FURG. Though there are still one or two points you could add.
  • The gameplay section is quite long. Though including all relevant information is more important than the article's length, I'd suggest you comb over the section and remove any information which isn't immediately useful to those who don't play the game. Also, you ought to convert the list of multiplayer game types into regular, unlisted prose.
  • There are quite a few one- and two-sentence paragraphs, which makes it quite choppy to read. Try merging some of these short paragraphs with other paragraphs (short or long) to get rid of the problem.
  • Reception section still needs expansion. Have a look at some VG featured articles to see how to make a longer section.
  • Needs more citations: WP:CITE.
  • You may want to convert existing sources to use the cite web template: WP:CITET.
  • Plot section seems a bit light, but if that's all there is then it's fine. If there are enough sources available, you could write a section on the game's setting and characters.

Have a look at WP:GA? and some of the articles listed at WP:VG#Featured content for further guidance. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me. Una LagunaTalk 09:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your assessment.Wi Account ki 02:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
The article's definitely improved, but there's still some work to do. I still feel the Gameplay section goes into a little too much detail:
  • Armor and health are represented by two bars on the sides of the screen that lower when the player is shot, which can be increased by walking over body armor and medical kits. The location of the bars as well as other gameplay features such as the objectives are reminiscent of Goldeneye 007 and Perfect Dark which some of the developers had previously worked on. The beginning section about what the health bar is could be removed: a link to Health (game mechanism)#Life bar will give the same information, but the similarity bit should stay in the article, though not necessarily in the Gameplay section. I'd suggest moving it to the section in Reception as something like: The location the objectives and health bars are reminiscent of Goldeneye 007 and Perfect Dark, which some of the developers had previously worked on.
  • An entire paragraph on difficulty setting isn't really needed: you can simply link to Difficulty level and say that is has three.
  • The list of multiplayer modes can be shortened by converting it to paragraphed prose. Something like: Four are available at the start: Deathmatch, Team Deathmatch, Capture the Bag (a variant of capture the flag) and BagTag (where a player must survive while in possession of the "bag" for the longest period of time). There are sixteen game modes in total...
A screenshot of a multiplayer game would also be helpful.
The short paragraphs still need to be merged wherever possible. Examples:
  • The paragraph about the cartridges can be stuck on to the end of the paragraph about time crystals.
  • Similarly, the paragraph about computer-controlled bots can be stuck on to the end of the paragraph immediately before it.
Sometimes you can't merge two paragraphs together, but keep the number of them to a minimum.
I also noticed that the term "Timesplitter" is used in the Gameplay section with no prior definition. There's also the random italicisation of "humorous", which isn't necessary.
The Reception section could still be expanded. The first paragraph could be split into two: the first dealing with praise for the game and the second dealing with criticism for it. The easiest way to expand the paragraphs is to include more quotations from reviews. This is the sort of thing we're aiming for. I'd also suggest sticking an in-line citation thingy in the Reception section, even if it's in the chart on the right.
Aside from those points, the only thing which you need to do is get more citations.
As for getting the article listed as a GA, you'll need to add it to WP:GAC, but don't do this until the article is ready.
Una LagunaTalk 09:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, implementing changes now. Geoff B 17:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:TS2 Chicago.jpg

Image:TS2 Chicago.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Platforms

it is incorrectly stated that it was released for the xbox 360

if someone can prove it was released for the xbox 360 then revert my change, but as far as i know, the xbox version isnt even backwards compatible as of now, let alone is there an xbox 360 version... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.29.43.6 (talk) 21:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)