# Talk:Freelancer (video game)

Should the Alternate Opening, the nasty old spoilers and the nasty blue spoilers be included? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.55.215.34 (talk • contribs) 

Don't see why not. Just make sure the spoiler warning tab is up and easily noticeable. CABAL 14:42, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Okay, now I distinctly remember in-game filler text saying that there was more than five sleeper ships launched. Which is more canon, the intro movie or the in-game text? CABAL 04:29, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The intro movie distinctly says that only the five ships were launched, and all five survived.  (This is an important clue, actually, because you don't see any evidence of the Hispania early in the game.)  If the filler text specifically says otherwise, it might be worth noting exactly what it says and documenting the discrepancy. Xihr 19:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
I don't recall there being mention of more than five either, but it's possible as a continuity error. If I can find evidence of this, I'll say so. Nufy8 20:38, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Not only is there text which states there was an additional sleeper ship, but you can actually see the additional sleeper ship if you have explored the game a little, as demonstrated by the screenshot in the article. There is, however, text in-game which suggests there are as many as eight sleeper ships, but this is largely regarded as an error left in from the previous storyline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.188.104.253 (talk • contribs) 
I remember the text in the game stating that there were more than 5 ships launched, but that the others had been destroyed in attempting to leave with the rest. Might be a continuity error as suggested. After all, the original intro had a Nomad ship attacking Sol. CABAL 18:02, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Can you recall where or when this text appeared? Nufy8 00:08, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
It was one of the random filler texts you get when you repeatedly talk to people in the bar. Pretty late into the game, too. CABAL 06:22, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Pretty sure Cabal is right, and it is rather late in the game - after you've finished the game, in fact. Keep talking to the Corsairs on Crete or on Tripoli Shipyard in Omicron Gamma - I think they mention other sleeper ships. It's either them or the Outcasts on Malta in Omicron Alpha. Other factions might mention them as well. TaintedMustard 18:23, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the rumors don't all have to be right. I mean, I remember during the story missions the people in the bar would give you their thoughts on the wars, but they weren't always right (although usually eerily close), and sometimes they were completely wrong about all of it. Why couldn't there just be errors in rumors intentionally put in? Also, if you click "Information" for the New Berlin-Sigma 13 Jump Hole or the Tohoku jumpholes (yes, there are two-one in Hokkaido I think) it gives you this blurb about "Valhalla Research" and stuff probably not originally intended to be in the game. It's probably just a glitch-no game is perfect. --Belugaperson 14:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Valhalla Research, as with some of the other 'unknown factions' were actually the original names for the corporation factions that still exist in the game.  If memory serves, Valhalla became the IC faction.  Nobody is too sure why it was changed, but looking around the code can enlighten you.  Yes, in Freelancer if you take all of the rumours as canon, then 8 sleeper ships were launched, this has always been presumed to be an error as Digital Anvil were taken over during the development by Microsoft Games, and were given a 'Just Ship It' instruction.  According to the designers, this is why the game was left as moddable as it currently is, and why the ships were left in, perhaps as a storyline that never got made.  In actual Freelancer 'canon' though, there are the 4 main houses sleeper ships, and the Hispana located in the Omicron Alpha system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.30.138.247 (talk • contribs) 
It is canon, I think, that at least one of the Sleeper Ships, perhaps more, were destroyed; and the Corsairs and Outcasts are the most reliable source for this type of history in the game. Therefore I'm inclined to believe that there were indeed eight sleeper ships; three were destroyed and five survived, of which one, the Hispania, is a 'secret'. It is also entirely possible that one or two of the others were slated to become different factions, which never happened. Actually I take a much more libaral, inclusive approach to what is canon than most. I figure that if  it makes a good story, does not conflict with canon in main body of the release, and was at any point written by the developers, then it is canon. Therefore, there were eight sleeper ships.--194.81.176.254 (talk) 14:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

battleclinic contains very useful information on the game and should be included in the external links for this reason. while lancers reactor is a good resource, it lacks information that battleclinic provides. please, do not remove the link again without a proper explanation. Dean.l 14:14:20, 2005-08-27 (UTC)

I made the link more specific so it automatically goes to the Freelancer section. Nufy8 14:29, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for that, Nufy8. Too bad BattleClinic doesn't have a homepage for Freelancer. Dean.l 08:16:11, 2005-08-29 (UTC)

I didn't think that all the planets and stations being on the same plane was so strange.
I believe most celestial bodies in a solar system do tend to lie on the same plane, it's called the Ecliptic Plane. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.25.139.113 (talk • contribs) 
yea, that's true. but it would be impossible to put trade lanes between them, as their positions relative to each other do not stay constant/stable. they orbit their sun at different speeds and therefore the distances between them will constantly change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.129.142.124 (talk • contribs) 

Trade lanes and objects being in the same plane are two completely different things. With the exception of the Kuiper Belt Objects and maybe some comets, all of the bodies in the solar system are in the same plane. This trend is repeated in every solar system we currently know of. I don't see how including that tidbit about Trade lanes has anything to do with the possibility that Ecliptic planes aren't possible. Eccentricned 13:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree. As far as having stations being on the same plane, that's explained even easier - since most are artificial objects, the builders could've chosen to put them in such positions. As far as asteroid bases go, they could've been moved. However, it stands to reason that, if planets are in the same plane, so are large asteroids. Chronolegion 14:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It might be possible that K mean Kilometers and M refers to Meters in-game but they are DEFINATELY not to scale with the current measuing system on Earth.
To argue that the game is "unrealistic" because distances between planets are "only" 20km is ludicrious. Marathon runners RUN 20kim all the time on Earth!
The official website stated planet Mahattan as 12,000+ km in diameter is also definately refering to km as another unit of measurement differing form kilometers. America alone is 9 million km squared in Area!
Bottom line:
K,M,km in-game do not refer to actual "kilometers" or "meters" we used right now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.21.154.113 (talk • contribs) 

Marathon runners RUN 20kim all the time on Earth - a good example of why it's viewed as unrealistic, not the contrary.
Concerning your edit to the article: to suggest that it's impossible for planets to be a certain distance apart because humans can run that same distance isn't exactly pristine logic that connects point A to point B in a smooth fashion.
America's area is 9 million km squared; Earth's diameter (which is what planet Manhattan was measured in) is roughly 12,000 km.
I've removed the references to marathon runners and America's area, but kept the notion in about K and M maybe not representing kilometers and meters the same way they're represented in the real world. Nufy8 04:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Can you please explain to me how K can represent kilometers the same way they are represented in the real world????? Planets are 20km apart...you know, your car travel at 90-100km per hour. You meant to say there is a possibility that in the game that planets are 20km apart and can be reached by a car in 15 minutes? 165.21.154.112 04:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
That's why it's either an unrealistic fact that the developers conceded to, or, as you suggest, might not be the same in the real world. We can't say for sure, either way. Nufy8 05:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Decisive information that "K" does not refer to "km": Planet Mahattan is stated to have 12,000km diameter IN-GAME. (right click Mahattan on starmap and click on the question mark icon) I flew across Planent Mahattan in game and realise that the distance is about 12K. Which means 1K = 1000km. This is STILL unrealistic but isn't as ludicrous as 1K = 1km. (This is insane, I run 2.4km everyday lol, am I a starship? lol)
We need a decisive clean up and rewrite, removing all argumenets and stating the in-game fact. Nuyf8 can you please do it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.21.154.112 (talk • contribs) 
Interesting. I just measured one end of Manhattan to the other using a waypoint, and it measured the distance at around 9K, so I'm not sure how you "realised" the distance was 12K. And let me say this again: it's unrealistic for everything to be in kilometers out in space, but if 1K = 1000km, it's still unrealistic, and in several different ways. Just because something appears less unrealistic doesn't make it true, and unless we know for sure, we can't positively and without question assume that K does or does not equal km. Nufy8 16:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Good. Maybe you should do a fly around Manhattan to estimate it's diameter in K so we can estimate how many km one K is. This is still unrealistic so please do a rewrite about this. I'm leaving the job to you. :) It is much less ridiculous than implying that the designers are idiots for making Star Systems 20km apart and K = km in real life. (the more I think about that notion the more laughable it gets. I run 2.4km everyday and it only took me under 12 minutes) 165.21.154.111 14:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
You know what, maybe your recent change was all that we need. Perhaps it's not necessary to go into specific details about K and km and all of that, especially when we know so little about the specifics. Since nothing is concrete, I propose we don't bother stating theories or explanations that we can't explain with absolute certainty. Nufy8 17:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
There is clear evidence for the possibility that 'M' and 'K' are indeed meters and kilometers, and that the scale is therfore distorted.  The starflier is about 10-15 'm' across.  'K' is obviously 1000 'M', because when a target is selected and you move closer than 2 'K' from it it changes to 1999 'm'.  Thus, if 1 'k' is indeed about 1000 kilometers then the starflier is about 10-15 kilometers long.  That's just ridiculous.  The other clear indication of scale disproportion is the person in the window.  Yes-you can see the guy inside your ship if you look really closely in rear view.  Compare him to the ship size, then the ship size to a planet or sun.  Now try to explain why it's not distorted. CommKing 21:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Metres and Kilometres? Are you people insane? K is representative of a thousand of whatever measurement units the game uses. That's why Kilometres are called Kilometres - because they are 1000 units, each of one metre. That's all the K signifies - a thousand, not a thousand metres. I've never read anything as ridiculous in my life. To put that in perspective, one Astronomical Unit (AU) which is essentially the radius of the earth's orbit around the Sun, is 150 million kilometres.
You should remove the entire section and consign this facetious "debate" to the dustbin of history. The entire topic is meaningless speculation - only the game designers can ever give definitive answer regarding what the units represent, anybody else's opinion is just that and as such has no place whatsoever in an encyclopedia.
The self-important, preening pomposity and absurd assumption of knowledge in some of the above comments is truly breathtaking. As for "measuring" distances using the quoted widths of ships and rack-of-the-eye judgements, do you really feel that was a productive use of your leisure time?
I content that your entire argument here is based on a faulty assumption; namely that the scale of the game is skewed. Surely the issue is actually that the perspective of the game is skewed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.120.138 (talk • contribs) 
Here is what Digital Anvil used and is brought to scale game size.  Enjoy!!! http://school.discovery.com/teachersguides/pdf/math/ds/space_distance_and_time.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.189.156.36 (talk • contribs) 
NOTHING is to scale in this game.  Nothing.  If you compare the size of a ship to the size of a planet, the scale is completely off.  The planet's radius simply isn't 10^5 times the size of your ship as you would expect of actual habitable planets.  Aside from a minor note that the universe isn't to-scale, I really fail to see how this discussion is useful.  Also, sign your posts! --129.128.211.45 18:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC) Er.... --Forgottenlord 18:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

He's right, nothing is to scale. it says 0m when you're like twenty-thirty meters from things. Freelancer units are not meters, nor do they match the metric system in any way. --213.167.96.195 10:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I would disagree with what you said the game being "NOTHING is to scale". I also disagree with you saying that the ships are largely off-scale. This is a futuristic game, so anything can happen. WinterSpw 15:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Not quite anything... The issue of scale is a thorny one. If you want real scale, check out Vegastrike. The problem is playability. Real-scale systems are a total pain to navigate through - there's the issue of granularity at extreme distances which can cause slingshots and overshoots. Vegastrike's autopilot, even with continual course correction when closing with a planet orbiting another star in the real-scale starting system, a Binary one, will commonly be off by more than the planet's diameter; indeed so much so that the gravity well does not catch the SPEC drive! That's using long integer maths, too, which offers a granularity in space which is exceeding fine. Real physics means you have to cancel your own inertia, and that can take a while with the less-than-super engines. And even Vegastrike just has one system to scale - because of gameplay issues!
Freelancer is not a space sim, it's a flight sim with a space theme. That's a very important distinction. The scales are so much smaller because the developers believed it made for better gameplay, not because they wanted realism. The dockable locations are as small as they are because curving round a planet looks pretty. It's all about look and feel and nothing about realism. That is Freelancer, and to a lesser degree, computer gaming in general.--Targ Collective (talk) 10:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
It is kilometers and meters as made obvious by 2.0k changing to 1999m. The developers did not make up a new measurment system that just happens to use m and k, just like metric m and km. The speed is also in m/second. Like it was said before, it's the scale that off, not the distance, To scale planents, stars, etc. would not be fun, it would be stupid becuase no one wants to fly for an hour to get to the next mission or jsut fidn the docking ring. Scales off, distances are meters and km, period.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.154.84.140 (talk) 04:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC) 

Well, I do. My friends do. Now, the 0 meters thing from objects, that is just the way point, you are 0 meters from a safe distance around your target. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 17:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Openlancer is not a mod for freelancer, it'll hopefully one day become a sequel to Freelancer. I can see what mean with linkspam, but would you please consider leaving that link in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.66.194.63 (talk • contribs) 

Until it does, it really isn't that notable enough to warrant a link of its own (especially when the link consists of but a small forum). Besides, The Lancers Reactor carries information on the project, should anyone request information on it. Nufy8 01:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Can someone posts the link to Openlancer here. It should be on the main page. 165.21.154.114 04:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
No, it shouldn't, and I've explained why. Nufy8 05:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
www.openlancer.com - Blackhole, Lead Developer of Openlancer 24.16.25.230 10:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I added Starlancer and Openlancer to the Similar Games section. Starlancer is a sort of prequel Freelancer so I'm I'm assuming that was an oversight. Openlancer has its own article and a direct link to the Openlancer website should not be added to the Freelancer article. I hope that resolves this issue. --MegaBurn 20:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
We also need some clarification. The caption calls it a 'Sabre' fighter, but the actual file name says that it's a 'Stiletto'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.33.171 (talk • contribs) 

It's definitely a Sabre. It matches up with one of my own screenshots from the game. [1] --Keolah 23:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Please keep the links to the four that are there, they are the most relevant and there's no point in adding clan/mod/fansite pages. They only confuse people and spam the page, if you want to advertise your site please start a new page (if it warrants it).
Bronzey 10:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

What is up with these YouTube music video links? Removed them. -- Kuroji 08:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion there should be links to the major community fansites, as support from Microsoft is lacking and anybody who doesn't know of those sites won't have any way to solve their issues. Especially with the Global List Server down, people just can't play online without knowing about the fixes. FriendlyFire (talk) 22:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

As already stated, Wikipedia is not a gameguide (WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:VG/GL) to help people play games.  Neither is it for the purpose of promoting sites/links (WP:SOAPBOX). Jappalang (talk) 22:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Technically, since the Corsairs have Greek and Italian influences in all of their things (ships, names, bases, etc.) couldn't we say that the crew on board the Hispania would be a conglomeration of Spain, Greece, and Italy? Or Mediterreanean nations, to make things easier.
Cowami, Worshipper of Qeueue 20:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Buth story says that Outcasts stand onboard Hispania, and Corsairs leaved ship in shutles. Why then so large distance betwean planets Malta and Crete? I just don't understand??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.47.167.202 (talk • contribs) 

They are indeed Mediterranean nations; but the term Hispania refers to the Iberian Peninsula which contains Spain and Portugal. How did the Outcasts get so far from the Corsairs? Simple, they stayed on the Hispania as it drifted for years; when they found the planet to be named Malta the Hispania was coming to a dead stop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FlieGerFaUstMe262 (talk • contribs)  Nicht Nein! 03:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
They are some problems with names to. Outcasts has all Italiam names buth planets (most of them) has Spanish names. On the other hand, corsairs has Spanish names buth planets and some other things has Greek or other countries meanings. One more thing, what about France???? Are they forgothen or what??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.47.167.100  (talk • contribs) 

The "prequel" to this game is Starlancer; in it, France was defeated as a nation and was probably not able to finance a sleeper ship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FlieGerFaUstMe262 (talk • contribs)  Nicht Nein! 03:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by FlieGerFaUstMe262 (talk • contribs) 
Thet´s very logical, thanks! I have find some franch names in some Outcast patrols, buth I don`t think that´s have some importance! I alsow did not heard something abouth freelancers sequel. That is biggest mistake becouse there is to much things left behind ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.47.167.100  (talk • contribs) 

Well, they do have some importance as Italy was defeated as well in Starlancer; most think that the little remaining population of those nations got on the Hispania. Nicht Nein! 02:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by FlieGerFaUstMe262 (talk • contribs) 

In the section Strange Physics:
"The trade-offs involved in making a space simulation game that is actually playable has resulted in a set of physical rules that are completely at odds with the "real" world."
"For the most part this need not detract from enjoyment of the game. After all, if the physics were too much like the real world, it would take years to fly from one planet to another, not minutes, unless spaceship speeds were increased so drastically that space combat would become non-viable. Certainly aircraft-style dogfighting is extremely difficult and frustrating using Newtonian physical models, which is why they have been largely absent in space combat simulators since their introduction in Elite II."
Are these two quotes not POV?  Or at least Original Research?  I would correct them myself but right now I am having difficulty thinking of a proper replacement.  69.124.143.230 23:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I dont think advertising links regarding multiplayer servers fit into the external links section.
There should be a special category for this.. or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.130.240.38 (talk • contribs) 

Nope tis not encyclopedic. For christs sake people do we have to go back and delete your adverts every single time. As much as I love the mod community or you love your server it would be better suited pimping you stuff voer there @ Lacers Reactor. Ariolander 09:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm really curious about this because logically there should be a spot in the game where there is an empty space between trade lanes where the wreckage of Freeport 7 should be. Is the wreckage/location of Freeport 7 in the game, and if not, is it in a mod of some kind? --Doncroft 20:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
It is possible that the system has been quaranteened since the attack. It is also possible that the Nomads have invaded the system since and now occupy it. How many Freeport stations are shown in the game anyway? I think I've only encountered one or two of them. Chronolegion 11:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Freeport 10 is between one of the Tau systems and the Outcast homeworld, so probably 9 (since 7 is destroyed) WalrusMan118 12:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Freeport 7 is in Sigma-17. I've personally seen the wreckage, while there is no place where it specifically says "Freeport 7 Wreckage", the area where the wreckage is lines upwith the shot in the first Single-Player clip of the stars. It is locted at on the left side of E3. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.205.138.198 (talk • contribs) 
Yeah, it is in Sigma 17, I have also seen it. There are just some random debris floating around, it's not worth for it to be noted on the nav map. --Stratman 12:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see the evidence supporting that roam the Alaska system, I'd also like to see the evidence of the Sigma-13 hole in the area. I've looked through the gamefiles of both Alaska and Sigma-13, there is no jumphole connecting them. Also, the Nomads invaded Alaska system only AFTER Liberty had been breached by nomads. Before that, it was simply a high-security system, used for extremely dangerous (or politcal) prisoners, and classified shipbuilding. Also the station is named Juneau Shipyard, not Farpoint Station. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.205.138.198 (talk • contribs) 

This article is now 55KB long, if you have any improvement plans. Now would be the time. -Dynamo_ace Talk
I would suggest cutting down the amount of detail the Story section goes into. All it really has to do is list the main plot points and provide a general overview of the games story. I really don't think it needs to list every single detail about the plot, which is how it seems right now. Quite a few sections seem to go into excessive detail, using 30 words to say something that could be said in 10. The Kinslayer 11:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I would suggest that the 'Strange physics' section be cut down a bit. Much of what is said in there is common to most video game and TV sci-fi franchises, and this particular explanation is extremely long-winded anyway. For example, all the talk about sound in space doesn't seem to be relevant here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.188.221.191  (talk • contribs) 

Please sign your posts. I agree, the sound-in-space thing needs to be removed. I don't get it when fans try to justify things like that. However, inaccuracies that are unique to Freespace should be left in the article (e.g. planet scale and static systems). Chronolegion 15:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Can we leave out the explanations, or at least just note them briefly and then move on? When I read a Wiki article, I want to know about the subject matter, not what other people think about it. Of course, "official" musings by the designers or developers probably should be included. E.g. if they originally wanted it to go in some other direction, whatever.
Truce 05:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is cloaking such a surprise to Freelancer characters? Did the Coalition not use cloaking extensively? In fact, that is how the war started. Chronolegion 15:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, it may be that cloaking technology (tech specs, working models or prototypes) were taken with the sleeper ships due to being considered 'non-essential' to colonizing a distant region of space.  The colonists would not NEED cloaks in setting up colonies, developing industries, etc.  As such, cloaks may have been 'forgotten' by the Sirius sector.  Just an idea that might rationalize this. Empath 05:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

While I do not deny that possibility, I do not think all colonists would have been that optimistic. I am sure at least a few of them understood that Earth's problems would follow them wherever they went and would try to preserve military technology. Chronolegion 12:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Juni states in the game that while Liberty had experimented with cloaking technology, the power requirements were far in excess of what a single fighter (or, IIRC, three battleship power cores) was capable of producing, hence the surprise at actually seeing it happen. 144.135.138.40 06:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I imagine a whacking great battleship suddenly appearing in front of you would be surprising anyway, familiar technology or not. 82.153.193.54 11:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

If this game was released in 2003, how is it possible that it received awards in 1999? - Im.a.lumberjack 22:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Dittooooooooo!!!! I was just going to ask this... - Alexsanjoseph 7:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
E3 is a convention show where games are shown off while still in production. Freelancer garnered rewards for its performance in the 1999 show. But due to time/money/production constraints and the Microsoft purchase of Digital Anvil, the game was not released until 2003, four years after it debuted at E3. 25 march 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.210.31.53 (talk • contribs) 

Can we clean up those websites at the end?  BattleClinic focuses on EVE now so thats gone, FLWO is a couple of months old and has only recieved 1000 hits (not exactly notable, and several of them arejust advertising servers which can be found through Lancers Reactor main site. 62.30.138.247 04:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know were these systems are? Clitton01 08:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK there is only two hidden systems: One is accessed from Omicron Gamma - the Cosairs homeworld - in square 2F. You will find the jump hole in a field of disabled fighters. The unknown system contains two planets with bases but no repair or equipment facilities.
The other hidden system is accessed through Tau-37 - cant remember the coord. but it is also in a field of disabled fighters. That unknown system has no planets or bases, just a neutron star and a radiation field...212.242.129.247 22:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)Troels 

 

vups - sorry - Omicron Alpha, not Tau-37. And location is F4.  212.242.129.247 22:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)Troels

The Freelancer Wiki has a bit more detailed info on this, if you're curious. See http://freelancer.wikia.com/wiki/Unknown_1 and http://freelancer.wikia.com/wiki/Unknown_2. Fyrius 23:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI, there are a bunch of 'jump holes' in that system, meaning that you can save a lot of time when you are trading or traveling long distance. Contralya 10:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Nope... Definitly no Jump Holes in Alaska... There's just the one Gate from New York - Ruppetthemuppet 24/11/07  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.242.190.181 (talk) 19:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC) 
Please bear in mind that mods change the game and things like Jump Holes. Unless you wish to create an article on a mod (please do!) confine your comments to Freelancer Vanilla, please.--194.81.176.254 (talk) 12:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I will be rewriting this entire article soon. I will be making major changes to befit Wikipedia and Wikiproject Video Games standards. The structure will be:

Lead
Gameplay
Plot and settings
Characters
Story
Development
Reception
References
External links
Besides accordance with standard Wiki guidelines, the revised article will:

be neutral in point of view WP:NPOV
have verifiable sources WP:VERIFY WP:VG/S
have contents that are mostly notable WP:NOTABLE
not be a game guide as per WP:NOT#GUIDE
not be an article entirely based on in-universe information without real world relevances WP:GAMECRUFT
not be just lists of features and links WP:NOT#DIRECTORY
not a compilation of indiscriminate information WP:NOT#IINFO
not have materials which are of original research WP:OR
The aim is to achieve at least a B-grade article dealing with Freelancer the computer game, and not a Freelancer article about itself. Jappalang (talk) 02:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

 Done Rewrite is done, but I would like to find out verifiable sales figures for this game. If anyone has them, please help out. Thank you. Jappalang 09:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

As usual, another fantastic article! I'm rating it at B for the moment, as I've found two unsourced statements: the first paragraph of Reception and the last sentence of the Characters section. There may be one or two more, but I've probably missed them. Otherwise, this article is - as far as I can see - nigh-on flawless. So source those couple of sections and press the GAC button. I salute you! Una LagunaTalk 18:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I have added references for the first paragraph of the Reception. As for the last sentence of the Characters, I was extropolating from the "no story missions" in multiplayer angle. It is true without the story missions, one will never meet the unique NPCs (with professional voices). However I am unable to find a qualified article which explicitly states that fact. :-( As such, I am removing that statement, and submitting the article to GAC. Jappalang (talk) 03:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I have set up a dedicated Freelancer wiki on my site.  May I include the link on the main page?  Here's the link, by the way: [2] --Gaeamil (talk) 00:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, in regards to this, please refer to Wikipedia's policy on External links WP:EL. One relevant point there is "Links normally to be avoided #13: Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." I also believe past discussions on external links for video games tend to support the notion that unless the external link has substantial unique information, it is better to leave it out. That said, there are currently 446,000 Google hits for the terms "freelancer" and "wiki". Unless one particular wiki has substantial real-world information about the game than the rest, it would be hard to call it unique. Jappalang (talk) 01:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the Reception section of the article is a little long... we should cut it down quite a bit. -ZFGokuSSJ1 (talk) 21:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I would like to point out that when editing, it would be good if the edit summary contains comments on what you are doing. As of right now, I am confused why you are changing accessdate parameters (showing up as red on the diffs despite being the same dates), changing a few em-dash usages (when Wiki-policy states the usage must be consistent within article, thus this change breaks this policy), adding spacings to the section headings when WP:MOS states them as optional, removing content and citations without explanation, etc. With the amount of edits,I will be putting back my last version of the article, and including back mainly the grammatical and typo corrections (use a diff to see what else has been incorporated or changed).
As for the Reception section, rather than simply being a "quote" list, my style has been to gather the prominent praises and complaints of the game from the reviewers. I feel this gives a better idea of the reasons behind the ratings of the games and increases the uniqueness between gaming articles. Jappalang (talk) 23:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I accidentally clicked a button on a Wiki tool I have that changes hyphens, but I reverted all of those and changed it all back to normal. I think we should incorporate what I changed grammatically and prose-wise... I believe it sounds better. There's less "weasel words" in it, and it sounds more encyclopedic. -ZFGokuSSJ1 (talk) 23:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
No problem. I think we can use this diff as a reference for what follows. I am more concerned with the removed contents. My version of the lead for example, contains the remarks on the reviewers' initial and final impressions which are readily verified. The lead being a summarized article, should contain the reception of the game, which is a crucial component of this game since it was part of the "celebrity studio" hype (a game readily awaited because of the reputation of its developer).
For the Gameplay section, I did consider taking the same stance as you did, i.e. simply stating the entire game is fully playable by mouse only, and leaving it there. However this game is the first "flight sim" to be using a mouse only and flying in such a fashion, the new interface proclaimed by Roberts. As such I believe it warrants a slightly greater description to illustrate why this control was different.
For the Plot and setting section, I am deliberately reasserting a constant out-of-universe stance to avoid falling into the "in-universe" trap. I remember reading several critiques of articles reminding us to point out notable figures with a small sample of their achievements, so as to give an impression to the readers and avoid the "click this to know this person whom you've seen in this movie but forgot their name at the moment". Basically, to keep the flow of reading going.
In the Development section, Robert's promises were described to give an account of what was axed at the end, as well as giving an idea of the scale of the project's ambition. "Easy learning curve" is not automated flight maneuvers, as the ease of learning is more of the mouse-interface. Robert's multiplayer intent is to explain the design decisions made (which is what the Development section is for), as well as to state the original Freelancer multiplayer scale (hence reinforcing why the cuts were an integral part of the reviewers' attitude towards the game). Robert's opinions on Microsoft are stated as these were his reasons to accept a sale to Microsoft. Regarding mods, I too wondered if any mention should be totally left out since most mentions are purely fansites, hence not notable according to Wikipedia policy. However GameSpot (a reliable source according to policy) does host a Freelancer mod which would bring a mention to the modding of the game, hence widening the coverage of the article.
I would like to know which are the words you found to be 'weasel-like' (as per WP:WEASEL) so I can remove work on those portions. Jappalang (talk) 02:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that revision would be a good reference to replace some stuff. We can rule out some of the edits I deemed "unworthy" for the article after some discussion. I just recently saw the article totally different several days ago and I was excited, since the article before the time I saw it was absolutely atrocious. I guess I just got all excited that I wanted to remove all the stuff I didn't think was good.
The main reason why I removed most of those phrases was not necessarily because of what they were and what the reference was, it was mainly because of the way it sounded, for instance, I don't really find this to be very encyclopedic: "They however pale in comparison to the scale of FreeSpace series ships." (which is weasel wording). Sure, it may have a source... but that doesn't really make it viable.
There are just some phrases which don't sound encyclopedic:
"Freelancer maintained a low profile throughout 2001 before popping out for a demo display,"
"The players could even buy and set up their own bases of operation."
"The game would run only with the mouse, allowing anyone to easily learn the game's controls."
To solve the problem, we're just going to have to simply re-word the sentences that we conclude need to be changed a little bit. -ZFGokuSSJ1 (talk) 03:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
No problem. Let us get this thing started.
"They however pale in comparison to the scale of FreeSpace series ships."
I would argue this statement has no weasel intent, since besides FiringSquad, two other reviewers (as in the Reception) have stated disappointment with the ship size. I do agree it is unencyclopedic on re-reading it, mainly because it does not serve the average reader (who may not know or care what FreeSpace is). Absolute should be given instead of relative comparison in these sections. Taken out.  Done
"Freelancer maintained a low profile throughout 2001 before popping out for a demo display, drawing large crowds at the International Games Festival 2002."
Is the issue with the "popping out", or is it with the intent of the statement? How about "The Freelancer team kept a low profile throughout 2001 before putting on a demo display at International Games Festival 2002, which drew large crowds." In place.  Done
"The players could even buy and set up their own bases of operation."
Am I right in presuming the "even" is the issue here? At the time of writing, I thought to emphasize this aspect because I thought Freelancer is the first to think of implementing it. However thank you for bringing it up, since I just rethought about it, and checked to find that Ultima Online also had it in their development plans which was a year earlier than Robert's. As such, it is a needless emphasis. Removed.  Done
"The game would run only with the mouse, allowing anyone to easily learn the game's controls."
I am thinking the short description in Gameplay would backup this later Development statement. If not, would "The game's control would be a purely mouse-driven interface designed to be intuitive to users." be better? In place.  Done
Thank you for the feedback. Jappalang (talk) 05:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, those are all perfect! Thanks! I might go ahead and review the Reception section and list out which stuff could be removed sometime today-ZFGokuSSJ1 (talk) 17:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Great! Suggestions implemented. Jappalang (talk) 20:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

This article is of very high quality for a ga-nominee, and I'm happy to pass. A few things though; both the Reception and Development section are pretty dense text, even with images. Perhaps subsections might help? Also, some pople might take exception to the large amount of fair use images. David Fuchs (talk) 22:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you can do them, so I made a small edit to that effect. To do a barrel roll, you have to be in free-flight mode and have the auto-orient or whatever option enabled (I think). Fly around until you are upside-down, then hit the space bar. The spacecraft will barrel roll and there you go. This can be done while still or moving. -NordsternMN (talk) 15:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe you are talking about aileron roll as pointed out by barrel roll. In any case, unless there is a reliable source stating barrel rolls can be done in Freelancer, the source we have says players are unable to. Jappalang (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I believe that I would be more useful if the link points to the barrel roll article rather than the aileron roll article. I changed the link on what I think is good grounds, but feel free to change it back if that is motivated. I'm not really an editor, so I might have missed out on something. 213.65.17.207 (talk) 21:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the situation is that in the gaming industry, it is very common (or norm) to call "aerilon rolls" as "barrel roll"s (due to propogation of the term's misuse since Star Fox).[3][4].  Jappalang (talk) 01:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The server has been officially taken down around late 2007-early 2008. I've updated the page to take note of this. FriendlyFire (talk) 22:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Is it? I can't seem to connect to it. Perhaps it got turned off when Digital Anvil was dissolved. -NordsternMN (talk) 15:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
-It has something to do with Microsoft wanting to finally cease it's support of the game. At least that appears to be the talk on the forums. I've only just discovered this myself and am looking into it, but it appears there are some direct connect devices, either stand alone for the stock version of the game (needing vers 48.45(?) at this time) or integrated into mods. There are still servers hosting Freelancer sessions. You can find a list here(although this is just a ranking of active servers):
http://www.aa-flserver.de/flserverstat/topservers24h.php

This site may also help:
http://discoverygc.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9252
I'm intending to look into it further, when I find something, I'll post it here. (Bobbo9000 (talk) 09:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC))

Image:Fl box.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, 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) 19:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

 Done Issue resolved. Jappalang (talk) 20:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I edited this article with updates about the community because I believe, as someone who still actively plays freelancer, such information will be useful for newer players who wiki the game and would like to be able to communicate with a community of players who can help them with the problems such as the master server being down, modifications, patches, and other things related to the game. The information is valid, and I would put in references if I had half a chance without having someone remove it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwolf042 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC) 

Hi, new information to the game is appreciated, but it must bear certain characteristics to qualify addition to a Wikipedia article. Generally one requires the information be at least verifiable (though sometimes notability is also a concern), and these sources must be reliable (i.e. blogs, forums, and fansites are generally no-nos). Wikipedia is not a deposit for every little bit of information concerning a subject; materials which guide a player how to play a game, indiscriminately list out items, or only serve to tout certain sites or thoughts are not what Wikipedia is looking for as per WP:NOT. As per guidelines suggested by the Wikiproject Video games, materials which are excluded from Wikipedia can be listed at the various gaming wikis (e.g. Encyclopedia Gamia, StrategyWiki, GamerWiki) due to them having a deeper focus on games. Jappalang (talk) 21:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I think Cwolf042 has a stronger case than is immediately apparent. This game has had a ridiculous halflife with major mods and custom levels successfully developed and released. The primary site for modder activity shows 124 users playing the game on 53 servers right now (1:37p CST on a Monday in 2015). Here's a suggested 2-sentence addition to the article:
"Post-Retail Mod Community" Freelancer was fortunate to attract a dedicated base of modding fans interested in extending and customizing the game's experiences using unauthorized modifications to the game code and data. Current mods include anything from custom missions and player-built ships to "total conversion" mods that introduce new game areas, rebuild core gameplay elements, or retheme the game to match cinematic universes.
Scrybbler (talk) 18:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

75 references for a computer game? I'm sure the article can do with much less. --217.233.237.30 (talk) 19:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It is an error to state dynamic economy is "missing" from Freelancer. The word means the concept should be there but is not. Basically it means the game mistakenly left out the concept which is wrong. Dynamic economy was (intentionally) "taken out from" the game. Hence a mod like CrossFire "introduces" the concept rather than restoring or correcting what was mistakenly left out.

I don't completely agree with you on this, but anyway, I can accept: no "missing". Anyway, "introduces" is still the wrong verb tense, cause article is (and should be) in past tense. Also, source states Crossfire introduced some other concepts as well. Please don't edit that out. goodone (talk) 17:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
While the article does state Crossfire introduce other concepts, most of the Freelancer mods do that as well. Crossfire is not the only mod to do it and should not be given undue weightage in this department. The statement before the two notable mods (based on their mentions on established gaming sites) stated the concept behind this. Please state the rationale(s) behind your emphasis on Crossfire. I like to hear your thoughts before weighing out the options. Jappalang (talk) 00:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Crossfire IS the only mod with dynamic economy (and dynamic universe - something I wanted to add too, but I knew you would require special reference for that, causing edit out, so I didn't; I might change that now, cause you have just accepted hosting source review for relevant in the case of dynamic economy, and it does mention dynamics in Crossfire universe too). I do not have to explain too much of what importance dynamics is for Freelancer topic: it is one of the most criticized things in the entire game. SWAT Development team, authors of Crossfire, modified the game basic code adding a special launcher which updates game dynamics from internet server, making ingame settings on economy and universe change every time it is started, as if it would have it's own life, developing even when player was not playing, regardless if that was single player or multiplayer. There is no other mod with an even similar concept. The only dynamics other mods have is while releasing new mod version; of course, that does not conclude dynamics. If you do not believe me, because I can only specify references I did previously, download some of the most popular mods, compare them with Crossfire and check the issue yourself. The truth is that Crossfire is not just another fan project, it was made to show that Freelancer engine is not limited on dynamics. goodone (talk) 00:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Crossfire is not the only mod with dynamic economy. Other mods such as Freelancer Totalwar, Rise of the Lost Children, and Nima's Freelancer Mod/Shrouded World among others lay claims to that too. Crossfire cannot claim to be the only mod to do so; even its host never said that. This article is primarily about the game Freelancer itself, and not a focus piece on its mods. Crossfire is simply just one of the several Freelancer mods out there. No detailed attention should be on any of them to avoid undue weightage, and any attempt to promote them is equivalent to WP:SPAM and WP:POV. Jappalang (talk) 02:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Once again, you are completely missing out the point, speaking about rules as if other contributors do not know them. Anyway, I will try to get to you again, repeating, and suggesting that you do some research, not just using Google, because that is not real Wikipedia writing.
1. As I stated, Crossfire is the only mod possessing dynamics in general, not only dynamic economy (which is not really dynamic in any of those mods you stated here, cause trade runs do not change, but prices shift a point or two, and only if player affects them, for a short time, reverting back to the defaults right-a-way, which is not dynamic, but interactive). In addition, other mods do not possess any dynamics in universe; nothing changes on regular basis, even if a major ongoing war is happening (imagine a space war without a destroyed station). Crossfire has this all.
This article is mainly on Freelancer the game, not one of its mod. What is the point of all this? Jappalang (talk) 05:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
As I stated previously: Freelancer was criticized for not having ingame dynamics. Crossfire is not only important as a mod (and we are not discussing if it is important as a Freelancer mod, please, stay on the topic), but also as the mod that dealt with flaky and criticized Freelancer's not-included-in-the-game-but-should-have-been issues, and because of this connection with the article, it is important for the topic. goodone (talk) 18:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Crossfire's "addressing" of Freelancer's faults does not play a part in Freelancer's history. It is an extension which did nothing to correct Freelancer since Crossfire != Freelancer. None of the mods in the article play a part in the reception of Freelancer (where are the established reliable sources reviewing their impact on Freelancer). This section is going nowhere since mods are only generally mentioned, and we should leave it alone. Jappalang (talk) 02:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
So, what you say here is: it doesn't matter Freelancer is still played today and this is not important for the article. OMG. Please, take a look at: MOTY Top 100 for 2007 and AMD GAME page on Top 100. I simply cannot agree that mods are not important for a game history, and the entire mods != Freelancer logic is simply lacking, Wikipedia or not. goodone (talk) 08:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
2. You cannot state Crossfire "also introduced" anything, cause there's no "also" in the reference to back it up, thus you are doing it against the WP:RS. You should either include other references for mods that have dynamics too, or simply leave Crossfire be the only one with relevance to the article (cause most of the other mods didn't even get to be hosted on gaming sites; especially those you mentioned up, 2nd link is news link on updating flhook, a modders' tool - not a mod, and 3rd link does not even work).
"Also" can be defined as "likewise", "as well as", etc. In the context of the preceding statement where mods are stated to introduce new ships and concepts, "Crossfire likewise introduced dynamic economy" as in introducing concepts. WP:VERIFY is used to verify exceptional claim. The burden is on you to prove Crossfire is the only mod supporting your belief, and the sources you quote did not verify that. The existence of Totalwar alone already invalidates that. The third link is accesible, likely you have a slow connection to it. My mistake on the second link, it should be the Hamburg City Mod which has implemented dynamic economy instead of Rise of the Lost Children. Jappalang (talk) 05:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
We are discussing dynamics in general here, as I already stated in my yesterdays post, so this is obsolete. Anyway, thank you for caring about my internet connection, but unfortunately, it is the link's server that is having issues with connection and availability, not my own. I am looking forward to see what you are going to Google out on Freelancer dynamics-in-general. Btw, Hamburg City is not a mod, but a multiplayer server (without a mod). goodone (talk) 18:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Hamburg City is a term for both its server and client, and uses mods; otherwise it will not be claiming "FLCD is integrated in our Client Mod, without that Mod you cannot use the Charmanager, so download it from our Serverstatuspage." The belief of Crossfire's monopoly of dynamic economics is simply mislaid. It matters not about Crossfire's "dynamics" since no reliable source claims that. Jappalang (talk) 02:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Hamburg City is a multiplayer server, not a mod. It says "This Server runs FLCD in semi-required Mode", meaning it doesn't require it at all costs. It also says "FLCD (Freelancer Cheat Detect) is an Anticheat System for Freelancer, the Client scans only Freelancer game files", effectively excluding Hamburg City from mod theory. Since it can be played with standard Freelancer client, Hamburg City doesn't represent a mod per se. It has a "mod" client, only to install FLCD on it, a cheating protection, nothing more. On the other hand, this server's modifications are limited, and do not change Freelancer in any particular way, especially when it comes to dynamics, simply because any important change would require a change in client too. Comparing it to Crossfire or any other mod is... showing you haven't made any research about the topic. goodone (talk) 08:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
3. On the other hand, if you think that information like this is not important in the aspect of Freelancer article, I would love you to specify exact line of the text rule that reads it, because, of course, I do not agree there is one. Development section of a game should always include any additional work by third party on the topic, especially if it adds new concepts to the original.
WP:IINFO states an article should not indiscriminately include information. WP:UNDUE states one should not give a piece of information more prominence than it is due. This article is on Freelancer, not its mods, and should reflect that. Mods are only a general mention. Unless Crossfire has more players than Freelancer ever did, or every one thinks of Crossfire whenever the game Freelancer is mentioned, Crossfire is just a minor pipsqueak compared to the game. Jappalang (talk) 05:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I do not understand what does any of this has to do with the article, because we are not discussing over more Crossfire in the text, but relevant and important information regarding further development of the original game. To make it simple, as you already said: "Mods are only a general mention." Nevertheless, they are to be mentioned (together with reasons for 'why'). goodone (talk) 18:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
goodone (talk) 04:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
It matters nothing what Crossfire does since it is not Freelancer the released game per se. Wikipedia articles are not to be indiscriminate collections of information, nor a soapbox for certain mods, nor to bring prominence to obscure mods (recognition as in the gaming industry like what the game has gone through). Reliable source does not mean it is the truth and excludes all other sources of information (WP:VERIFY), nor a licence to allow one to misinterprete or misrepresent such information. Crossfire's claim of being the only mod having dynamic economy is patently false. Since you believe in the prominence of Crossfire and are interested in detailing its "goodness", please create a Crossfire Wikipedia article like what most notable mods have done (Counter-Strike) and let it be judged on its own. Jappalang (talk) 05:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Again, no comment, cause we are not discussing here any of the: 1. Crossfire as an article, 2. WP:IINFO, 3. WP:SOAP, 4. WP:UNDUE, 5. WP:RS, 6. WP:VERIFY, 7. any 'mis-'es of information, 8. dynamics-in-economy-only, nor 9. my beliefs on Freelancer, Crossfire or god. Please, make your future posts on-the-topic, if any. goodone (talk) 18:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
(redented) I had found it hard to keep assuming good faith when your contribution history focuses only on Crossfire in this article. You are correct we should go back to focusing on Freelancer. Our arguing over Crossfire's exclusivity of features serves no further purpose since they should not go into the article. I have re-written the statements about the mods to keep their focus general. The gist of the new statement is "Fans created mods such as xxx and yyy. Depending on the mod, aaa, bbb, ccc features are introduced", but brushed up in terms of langauge and framed in an active voice. The previous statement by stating 'xxx' mod is hosted at 'yyy' seems unsuitable for encyclopaedic entry (mind you, I was the one responsible for the awkward sentence in the first place). Thus no dispute should arise from statements claiming exclusive features of a mod or such. Jappalang (talk) 02:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

My contributing history addressed mods, Discovery and Crossfire, which I am quite informed about. Unfortunately, Discovery never made its way to the topic, being deleted by you every time, even thou it had won MOD DB Top 100 on 2007 and 2006 Moty, just like Crossfire. Therefore, I wasn't interested into bothering much about it, since it seems you behave like you own this article, always editing out anything you think is irrelevant. It's not easy to fight a battle like that, and thus I don't want to spend my time on it much more than mentioning mods, which I spend my free time to contribute to. I made my modifications to the article a few moments ago, and I can only hope you will not find them ohhh-so-much irrelevant and delete immediately. goodone (talk) 08:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
The whole point centers on what this article is. It is not about mods. It is about Freelancer. I do not own the article, but I do take it upon myself to ensure the article conforms to Wikipedia policy. You can refer to what artistandard the cle was before I touched it, and what standard it has now achieved and is recognised as. Stuffing everything about mods into the primary game article does not make the article good by Wikipedia standards. As for your latest edit, I am pleased with the use of a notable publisher for a non-industry award. You should, however, avoid the unbackable statements such as "making the game popular" (what is the proof the entire game industry is talking about Freelancer mods instead of say Starcraft 2 or Call of Duty 4?) and "widening story". Why should there be a misleading link to mathematics of dynamics which is unrelated to "dynamic features" in the mods? "Over years" is a vague term as Wikipedia asks for precise language when it comes to dates WP:DATE. As such, I have again edited your edits to be concise and verifiable by the references. Jappalang (talk) 11:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, ur last edit is acceptable, thou I had my reasons for mentioning both popularity, changes in the storyline and a link to theory of dynamics when mentioning ingame dynamics in mods. Now, I am glad you have finally left moddb awards link alone, as well as Discovery mention, cause both Crossfire and Discovery are responsible for the fact that Freelancer is still selling. I don't think I have anything else to argue about this issue, so your last change will the final, I think (finally pleasing Discovery community too). goodone (talk) 17:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

A whole article on Freelancer without a single mention of Privateer, the previous game of this sort that Chris Roberts was involved with, let alone other seminal works such as Elite?!
There must be interviews somewhere where people involved with Freelancer discuss the older works they built on, what Freelancer took from them, and how, where, and why it differs from them.  If anyone knows of any, maybe they could use them as sources to add some information on this to the article. 78.105.167.145 (talk) 14:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

There are materials where Roberts talked about Privateer but he casually only throws one statement in the line of "Privateer and Elite failed in this aspect" and "Well, I created Privateer" without directly connecting to Freelancer itself (i.e. it had an oblique influence at best). Roberts never stated Privateer was the predecessor for Freelancer. You might want to read through Stephen Butts of IGN interviewing Chris Roberts (it is among the references). Much of the Privateer-Freelancer connection comes from reviewers fanatical about Privateer and trying to establish a connection between the two. Even then, it is pretty much generic statements which amount to hype like "if you loved FFX, then you have found its successor". Jappalang (talk) 22:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

This article seems to attack the game really.  Particularly the very last paragraph.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.119.185.104 (talk) 05:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC) 

It is only reporting what the reviewers wrote—good game but did not quite live up to what was promised. Jappalang (talk) 06:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
funny, I think this article reads like an ad and should be less positive/fan-made and more neutral/objective 117.14.204.232 (talk) 17:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't it make sense to have a section on the global game server being down? Novice players won't know how to use the game's Internet multiplayer functionality (since it doesn't work anymore without mods or tweaks). I tried to contribute such a section but it was reverted :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geekerest (talk • contribs) 06:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it does not. Wikipedia is not a site teaching people how to play games (WP:GAMEGUIDE). It is a site to inform readers what a game generally is, more notable events during its conception and development, and its reception. A key point is verifiability on most content especially if it is contentious (WP:V). Jappalang (talk) 06:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, sorry, first timer :). Please consider adding a note about the global server going down. This may be considered a significant event in the game's history.Geekerest (talk) 07:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
1 - 2 sentences of information should NOT be added to this article.  What, are you trying to inform the people who read wikipedia something about Freelancer or something?
Jappalang, it is my opinion we should add something about Microsoft ending support for Freelancer, thus mentioning the multiplayer replacement from the community in the development section, just after mods. It is relevant info according to the Wiki specs. I hope you concur. It can be short, only a few words, but quite informative. I propose: 'According with their lifecycle policy, Microsoft ended support for Freelancer in December 2007, mainly affecting multiplayer. The community answered with a creation of the Freelancer List Server replacement.' References: http://www.microsoft.com/games/freelancer and http://fllistserver.com/news. Please, be constructive in your decision. Thanks. goodone (talk) 18:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Jappalang's objection was with a "how-to" section. I would have no objection with the sentences you have suggested above; however, a "section on how to connect to Internet game servers" is objectionable per WP:GAMEGUIDE. Una LagunaTalk 19:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
As Una Laguna has said, putting in "how to"'s is not what Wikipedia is about. Furthermore, to repeat for the n+2945th time, contentious information should have sources that pass WP:V/WP:RS. Hence, only Microsoft's role is reported. Jappalang (talk) 23:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I find this quite acceptable reference regarding list server replacement. All news are checked by both public and moddb stuff. Check the terms of service if you wish. goodone (talk) 20:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Moddb is not an acceptable source (refer to WP:RS). Jappalang (talk) 22:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
As far as I see, moddb could be accepted as a reliable source. It is not a fansite. It's a news and database company providing the support for community projects and modifications on more than 15000 games. But if you can describe your viewpoint in particular, I would appreciate it much. I doubt anyone reading Freelancer article would say it is not reliable info. goodone (talk) 01:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Moddb has no editorial process in place. Information is user-submitted and factuality is not checked. Anyone can submit articles per "Our community-based features mean that it's not some mysterious editor in an ivory tower writing reviews - it's anybody who can put pen to paper." and "Perhaps most importantly, opinions on gaming aren't just our own - they are the combined feelings and views of anybody who has taken a moment to make themselves heard."[5] Simply put, it is a community site akin to forums. Content is not regulated by a fixed process but in a chaotic manner, "all content on the site is controlled by the community. This means you can add / edit and delete your content and others in certain circumstances. We ask that you respect fellow community members and freedom of speech and don't delete comments and other content which disagrees with your opinion. Fair ground to edit / delete others content is when it is in breach of this Terms of Use".[6] and "DesuraNET empowers its 230,000 registered members to create, collaborate and tailor their entertainment experience to suit their interests."[7]
In a manner, community sites are generally not accepted as reliable sources. Moddb and Desuranet has declared themselves as such per "'Consumer generated content will continue to revolutionize the definition of entertainment' Reismanis said, 'and DesuraNET will be at the forefront of this trend, empowering its community to create the content it desires.'" and "Consumer desire for creative self expression through entertainment has become incredibly popular. The recent emergence of sites which thrive on community generated content, such as Flickr, Youtube, Myspace, Digg & Wikipedia are only a few examples of consumers controlling their personal entertainment experience."[8]
If you wish to propose Moddb as a RS, please do so at WP:RSN. Jappalang (talk) 02:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
If an article's submitted by anyone, checked by people who are assumed to know what they're doing, and uses relevant authorities to support its arguments  I'm not sure I understand how this differs from Wikipedia itself.  I can understand not using sources that aren't checked and aren't accountable which is why no one bases their opinion off one single anon webpage but this seems worth looking at.  It almost seems counter productive not to allow other community sources to provide information for Wikipedia.  I would like to hear the flip side of this - smr  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.164.211 (talk) 02:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) For those trying to push community sites as reliable, please read WP:RS, WP:V, and most recently (a summed up dispatch on reliable sources as judged in FACs) Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches.  Community sites (including Wikipedia itself) are not likely to be reliable.  Jappalang (talk) 06:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I know, I actually got an hour long class on this very subject during my first semester. I'm not a sysop, I'm a lot more interested in the opinions of the rest of the community than if it's a rule of Wikipedia. I'm asking because it seems outwardly strange that a community edited site doesn't accept the word of a large number of community edited sites (verifiability, not truth) while other sites which have admitted being influenced by advertisers are acceptable (gamespot, etc).  I know a random MS game discussion page isn't the right forum to start that kind of discussion but I came across it here so I put in my 2 cents.  What does allegations of score fixing (say, a reviewer gets fired for not scoring a certain game published by a big advertiser highly enough) do to a site's suitability to a source?  It's common sense not to pay THAT much attention to community sites but it seems that on occasions all they do is concentrate a large group of people with an area of expertise into the one area and the content they produce is very good.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by - smr 81.151.164.211 (talk) 12:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
To be blunt, trying to change Wikipedia's policies by this page is barking up the wrong tree (and pretty much pointless).  Present your case at the proper pages (the ones listed above) if you wish to persuade the project to change its policies.  This page is for discussion to improve this article (about Freelancer the game) in accordance with Wikipedia's standards.  Policy discussions should be on the relevant policy pages themselves.  Jappalang (talk) 13:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree, this isn't an attempt to change wikipedia, it's a discussion.  Should this source be accepted as valid then there would be the option of including a great deal of writing on the mechanics of playing the game.  Currently I believe that it is not even acceptable as an external link, which I think is a waste, since the article discusses the multiplayer so much.  I'm not particularly interested in making an argument that the sources used in wikipedia should be extended because it's not my project and a lot of thought has gone into the acceptable sources already but I personally feel that, in the medium of video games, gaming metaportals are just as important (though not as carefully fact checked and perhaps not as trustworthy) as peer reviewed papers which are published in the sciences.  Just as science progresses using individual researchers and teams publishing papers and then other people who know about it check their findings, give an opinion, check if it's true and if enough people think it sounds right then it gets to stand as a presented theory which is then challenged then if a similar process (perhaps by checking comments as well as) goes on for video gaming posts we should be able to consider these articles that "survived" worth considering with some surety that their content is for the most part accurate.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.164.211 (talk) 19:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)  - smr

The reception section which mentions a lot about Skoar! must be removed. --SkyWalker (talk) 08:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Um, what are the particular reasons that neccessitate this source to be removed?  Jappalang (talk) 09:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Unreliable source. There are also involved in piracy. --SkyWalker (talk) 09:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
By the standards in WP:V and WP:RS, Skoar! seems to qualify as a reliable source.  It is owned by 9.9 Interactive,[9] which also owns Digit, a published magazine, that Skoar! is a spinoff of.  9.9's policies also befits that of a reliable source.[10]
That said, the allegations of them being pirates are serious and reliable proof (i.e. from reliable sources) are required.  In any case, unfortunately, being a "pirate" does not discredit them as a "reliable source" in terms of gaming reviews and news (the conundrum of policies and guidelines here).  A case in reference:  Home of the Underdogs' (HotU) staff are considered as reliable sources on old games; however, the HotU site carries a lot of potential copyright violations.  As such, one can use the staff reviews as references, but one cannot link to the site itself (due to possible copyright violations).  See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 37#Underdogs links under attack.  Jappalang (talk) 10:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
The proof of being pirates is the dvd rom they provided. I won't consider those to be reliable source. I will be rewording to a better and much reliable source such has IGN or Gamespot. --SkyWalker (talk) 10:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Also i highly doubt this sites [11], [12] and this to be reliable source.--SkyWalker (talk) 10:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
No problems, we can investigate these sites (which will take a bit of time).  If they are unreliable, we can remove them.  I have been thinking to review some articles I touched on long ago.  Jappalang (talk) 10:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Stratos Group's reliability is in line with policies and guidelines, i.e. it is a reliable source.  Read the reasoning at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Stratos Group.  Jappalang (talk) 22:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Unable to find anything that could substantially prove The Entertainment Depot to be a reliable source.  Replacing its refs with :: tags, finding alternate sources later.  Jappalang (talk) 01:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Culture Cartel removed as well: no sources found to vouch for its reliability.  Jappalang (talk) 07:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for doing so much. Also look at metacritic it has loads of good reviews. Even skoar needs to be replace. Iam looking for good alternatives. --SkyWalker (talk) 07:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Skoar need not be replaced as it is proven they have editorial processes in place (thus fulfilling the criteria spelt on WP:V and WP:RS).  Its possible participation in an illegal business practice does not make it unreliabile as a game review source (they are two different things so as to speak, just like the HotU example I have pointed out above).  Not all sites on Metacritic are considered reliable as well (Metacritic's criteria for its selection is different from Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources). There are still a couple of sites in the current version of this article that need to be evaluated on their reliability, but I am putting this on the backburner until I have dealt with other issues currently going on.  Jappalang (talk) 08:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I see. Because i use to buy Skoar magazine and i stopped buying it due to many reason. We always wanted to get gaming magazine such has GFW or PC Gamer but this sort magazine are not available in India. Also i had few of the friends who worked for this magazine. All of them left now they told me that the editor of the magazine has changed lot of their words and they never got proper response for the editor. --SkyWalker (talk) 08:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

per the image user policies, animated images shouldn't be used in articles as you can't print them in a print version of the article. This should be split in to 2 images if necessary, but removed regardless.--Crossmr (talk) 07:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, along with this image, which could be effectively described in text (thus failing NFCC#1), I removed a few other excessive images.  Jappalang (talk) 08:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe this is an important aspect of Freelancer. While it certainly doesn't deserve a full section on how to connect and all that (under WP:GAMEGUIDE), it deserves a mention in a single sentence. It's an important part of the game's history and has been for the better part of 2 years.
Oh, and modDB has editors that look over news. I would know: I used to be one. Dragonmaw (talk) 03:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Veriability is subjected to reliable sourcing, with a preference for secondary sources.  FLlistserver.com does not qualify as a reliable source; neither is it a third-party either.  Information on fan-created mods should be sourced by reliable third-party sources.  Is there any reason to remove mention of the 'The Next Generation, Crossfire and Discovery mods?  Jappalang (talk) 04:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I think a link to the new master-/listserver should be added as it was done in the German article: www.fllistserver.comThis link was also added to the official MS fansite links so it should be valid. (Official MS site, Freelancer List Server Project) Malsaa (talk) 01:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The point of Wikipedia is to present an encyclopaedic knowledge of the subjects it contains.  It is not meant to be a repository of fansite links or to teach players where to go to continue their gaming experiences (see Wikipedia:External links, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines among other policies and guidelines).  Jappalang (talk) 02:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
The official Microsoft Freelancer page has now added a link to the new listserver on their main page. I guess that should be a reliable source. 178.203.51.39 (talk) 05:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Information about the community's ability to continue the online game was already in the article and sourced to reliable secondary sources.  Jappalang (talk) 03:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of the many mods for this game? I think that's one of the most important part of it, that there are dozens of mods, some of which are total conversions. Also, I checked this page a few months ago, and it at least mentioned Freeworlds, if nothing else. So, what happened, and why is that missing from the article? Kevin (talk) 18:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

There is little mention because the gaming industry and the world at large never reported much about the mods.  Wikipedia is reliant on reliable sources, which many fansites (modsites) fail; they are either self-published or do not have the policies/reputation deemed necessary.  Similarly the articles are not for our own findings, but to summarize and articulate what reliable sources have covered of this game.  Jappalang (talk) 22:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Freelancer (video game)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.
Shockingly passed GA over a year and a half ago, this article is way below GA standards. Its two main problems to it are:

Too many Citations needed! I think I lost count on 10 or 11.
The other reason is the article's wording. I had problem reading the article and I wonder if some sentences are nessessary, but I could be wrong on this.
I will give this article 8 days or I'll delist it. GamerPro64 (talk) 04:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately I have no idea who the original nominator was; I'd just use PageStats to find the top three or so contributors and if they're still active ping them. You're going to have to be more specific to the issues with the prose, but looking back at the version I passed it seems like almost all those {{fact}} tags were accounted for by specific refs; I wouldn't reinsert them however, because I'm not sure if there was some sort of issue (most appear to be reliable on first glance, but I cannae vouch for any of them.) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 04:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Don't worry. I told User:Jappalang, the nominator, about this on his/hers talk page. GamerPro64 (talk) 04:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Eh... there were no [citation required]s when the article was passed as a GA.[13]  Now what happened later was that as time passed and I got further into Wikipedia policies (especially at WP:VG/S), I realised several of the sources I used were less than reliable...  I went back to a couple of my old articles and removed those unreliable sources; hence the [citation required]s here.  Later, I suffered a sort of VG burnout as I keep running into "fans who insist their favorite mods should be included, without reliable third-party sourcing", "those who think they must keep the game alive", and those who "politely" insist on introducing biased elements without reliable sources or with undue weightage—edit-war and get blocked/banned is the likely result you get with civil POV pushers unless you get substantial backing—also the NG article was pretty full of what I later realised were trivial stuff (several announcements of delay and marketing tactics??!! What is the point...), thus my abandonment of Ninja Gaiden (2004 video game).  Lesser known historical and non-entertainment articles were more joyful to work on, and I did not bother to replace those citations I have removed here.
There is also another reason I stopped fixing this article.  Like GamerPro64 said, some of the prose is... bad (this is after I have managed to get some FAs and read through many other FAs).  It could do with some refining and sprucing up.  Unfortunately, that would take some time.  The [citation required]s can be removed or backed up with other sources, but would also take a bit of time (much less than the rewriting but still more than a day or two).  I would not begrudge anyone if this article is delisted from the GAs, but if you could spare a week (and see if I possibly get the motivation to fix the stuff here or if someone wants to take a hack at it), that would be very much appreciated.  Jappalang (talk) 11:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Jappalang- I'll give the article a copy edit if you think the article is salvageable. My hands full with other things though, so I'm afraid I can't help with the sourcing. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC))
I just tried to fix up the Gameplay section.  I would appreciate it if there is feedback (from GamerPro64 and others) if this is an improvement and would start the way to resolve the prose issues.  @Guyinblack25: the article can be salvaged; I will try to sort some of the issues out first.  I will contact you if I lack the time to complete the task.  Jappalang (talk) 14:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Wow. I must say, I looked at the differences and you have done great work to it so far. It might help the prose issues, but I'm not sure. Keep up the good work. GamerPro64 (talk) 00:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Okay, did some work on the Story section; that leaves the Development and Reception.  Keep up with the comments; our objective is to write video game articles that are accessible to both gamers (hardcore and casual) and non-gamers alike, so any difficulty in comprehending the text are possible issues.  Jappalang (talk) 08:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Brushed up the Development section: initially it was entirely in chronological order, which for a history article would be fine, but in my opinion makes a video game article look to be steeped in trivia (release here, delay there, do this, do that).  Thus, I reorganize a tad towards a thematic scheme, reducing a bit of redundancies.  I would really appreciate feedback on this version compared to the old one: is the thematic approach or the chrnological better (I can just try to fix the prose for chronological version if the latter is the choice)?  Jappalang (talk) 09:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Looking pretty good so far. I did some copy edits and have some questions that came to mind while reading.
I think the second paragraph can be condensed some. Maybe a stupid question, but are all the "planets and space stations" are located within the star systems visited?. If that's the case how about this: "The game allows players to pilot a starfighter and visit planets and space stations in (several or EXACT #) star systems. They can engage in combat with other starfighters to protect traders or engage in piracy themselves, look for jobs, and engage in commodity trade."
"Information boxes for data, such as targeting, communications, and navigation, can be minimised."This implies that they are displayed by default, but neglects the fact in my opinion. Perhaps this instead? "Data related to targeting, communications, and navigation is displayed in on-screen information boxes which can be minimsed."
This sounds off to me, can't put my finger on it though. "By clicking on certain objects, the player makes the pilot interact with them by moving to other locations, talking to other characters or trading with merchants."
I get why it's here, but this sentence sounds out of place to me. Probably better for the reception section. "The Freelancer world is described as dynamic and full of life."
Some clarification wouldn't hurt here, unless there are in-games roles which lack a definite name. "...trader, pirate, bounty hunter, or any other desired role."
"Among" or "between", because the two would convey different meaning here. "Each faction has its own agenda, and the relationship among them..." If it's "among", "relationship" should be plural.
I'll try to read the Development and Reception sections tomorrow. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC))
Took a stab at all the above, except for the first point (please have a look)—not exactly sure which "second paragraph" you are talking about, but not all planets can be visited.  Anyway, I re-inserted the "Published in 2003 for the Windows platform, ..." to open Gameplay as without this statement, one would be lost with regards to context when considering the main body as separate from the lede.  Removed some statements in Reception—will continue later on in time.  Jappalang (talk) 05:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry about the confusion, second paragraph in the lead.
In regard to this sentence:
"Players take up the roles of pilots who fly single-seat spacecraft (starfighters), trading with merchants on space stations and planets, and engaging in combat against other spacecraft."
I think I understand the sentence structure now. The reason I changed it was because the comma after "planets" gives it the appearance of a list of actions. With the first verb ("fly") in one tense and the other two ("trading" and "engaging") in a different tense, the list is grammatically incorrect. However, I believe you're just trying to expand on the role of the pilot rather than make a list of actions the pilots do. The issue is that the portion after "spacecraft (starfighters)" is very long and tries to include too much info. I would either change the verb tense to avoid the confusion or split off the trading and engaging part into a new sentence.
I just saw how long the reception section is. It's a monster wall of section. Without reading it, my gut reaction is to say trim it. But I'll give it a read first, before sticking with that thought. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC))
I gave the "Development" section a sweep. Feel free to question any of the changes I made, as I hope I didn't lose the intended meaning of the content. The only thing that stood out to me was the image doesn't really tie into the content. May I suggest using a caption similar to Marble Madness#Development. I'll give the last section a sweep either tomorrow or over the weekend. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC))
I tweaked the caption a little.  I do not plan to go over the lede until Reception has been revised.  I have some plans for the section but I am not certain I have time to work on it over the weekend (perhaps by next mid-week?)...  Jappalang (talk) 06:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I hate to say this, but I think the whole "Reception" needs a rewrite. It is quite informative, but the content is presented almost like a game review, rather than a encyclopedic recap of game reviews. Overall, I think the things to remember are other people's word should be attributed and recurring comments from different reviewers can be paraphrased/condensed to provide more of an overview.
I'd say this section is the last hurdle to worry about. Once it's been revised, I think the GAR should finish with a "keep". Keep up the good work Jappalang. ((Guyinblack25 talk) 21:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC))
Okay, I have rewritten the Reception, moving some information from Development.  The section is now focused more on the reception toward the bigger features/issues mentioned throughout the article, instead of meandering into smaller stuff.  Tweaked the lede as well.  Please provide feedback.  Jappalang (talk) 03:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
A vast improvement. My only comment is that the second paragraph could use more attribution to comments. The other paragraphs in the section do a much better job than before. I'd say a few more tweaks and the GAR can close. Good work Jappalang. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC))
Is this sufficient?  Jappalang (talk) 22:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Still room for improvement, but I think it gets the job done.
In my opinion, the article is much better and easily satisfies the prose criteria for GA. Let's see what GamerPro thinks. (Guyinblack25 talk 23:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC))
References are great. NO citation needed. And Gib, you're right. The prose looks way better. So, I will keep its GA status. Also, with more work, this could be a FA. GamerPro64 (talk) 01:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

anyone who tried to start flserver knows that you can't set max players >128.
but my edit about that was reverted due to Wikipedia:PSTS since i posted a screen of the server's setup window as a proof. http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/5396/11446621.png 
i took a closer look, so here goes:

Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.

The screenshot is not an interpretation, it directly shows you the player limit, no guessing is required.

A primary source can be used only to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge.

Verification of that screenshot does not require any special knowledge. You just have to have a copy of Freelancer, run the server and try to set the player limit >128.

Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source.

None was made, i just wrote the number, that flserver shown me.
In my opinion in this case primary source is more reliable than the game review at a site. So i suggest the true number to be put into the article.

Did a short search:
Source 1 for freelancer supports only 128 players: http://everything2.com/title/Freelancer
Source 2 for freelancer supports only 128 players: http://www.gamescore.com/index.php?action=reviews&reviewid=11
Maybe that UGO source was talking about what you can do if you hack the server... But an unmodified Microsoft Freelancer Server can only handle 128 players --Nosfi (talk) 09:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
None of the two sources above qualify as "reliable", and a screenshot does not tell the build of the software or whether the application has been modified; however, I found the German issue of PC Gamer (April 2003) that conducted a test (review) of the game and it listed 128 as the maximum.  So, there it is.  Jappalang (talk) 14:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

How about linking to the Starport? Seems like the only community remaining really active. Cheers Horst-schlaemma (talk) 21:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Freelancer (video game). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110525120259/http://www.gamespot.com/features/game_evol_p1/index.html to http://www.gamespot.com/features/game_evol_p1/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Freelancer (video game). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=27412
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gamespot.com/features/game_evol_p1/index.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0%2C2845%2C2344712%2C00.asp
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080106234548/http://www.gamecritics.com/review/freelancer/main.php to http://www.gamecritics.com/review/freelancer/main.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:57, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Freelancer (video game). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071116001830/http://www.ugo.com/channels/games/features/freelancer/ to http://www.ugo.com/channels/games/features/freelancer/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070608125140/http://archive.gamespy.com/reviews/march03/freelancerpc/ to http://archive.gamespy.com/reviews/march03/freelancerpc/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071228033802/http://news.teamxbox.com/xbox/5169/Xbox-Soundtracks to http://news.teamxbox.com/xbox/5169/Xbox-Soundtracks
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080122120833/http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/1999/jun99/bestofshowpr.mspx to http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/1999/jun99/bestofshowpr.mspx
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070808003203/http://pc.ign.com/articles/391/391429p1.html to http://pc.ign.com/articles/391/391429p1.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:26, 7 October 2017 (UTC)