# Talk:G-Police

G-Police received an award.
I added this line to the main page:
"G-Police was awarded the "Creative Labs Best Use of Innovative Technology" award at the PC Zone awards ceremony 1997."
It was removed. I added it again. I mentioned that I was the lead Programmer. I was told I had a "conflict of interest". 
But... G-Police received an award. That is a fact. 
Maybe the fact that I added a fact means this particular fact is not factual? Maybe someone else should add this fact to the G-Police page to make the fact more factual?
Obviously I am ignorant of Wikipedia's methods, but this seems rather strange to me.
Proving that G-Police received the award is trickier. Many people were there - some will remember the award. I cant find any proof on line, but I have a photograph of the large aluminium Z shaped award.
So if anyone can help/explain how to get this fact added I would be very grateful. Thanks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.193.22.168 (talk) 17:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC) 

You need to back up any claims with sources, especially extraordinary ones, like awards. This should be easily verifiable by someone with the relevant PC Zone issue. I don't have the right issue myself. Issue #55 mentions an upcoming "special Creative Labs Technology Award". —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:00, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Exactly, we need a source. If you have the information, could you paste some web results? You can say it is a "fact", but that's not how Wikipedia works. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 20:51, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
I agree with the two above. Long experience has shown me that you need reputable citations for anything factual in a Wikipedia article, be it development information, gameplay, or its reception and any awards it may have one. Can you provide an independent, verifiable source? --ProtoDrake (talk) 08:36, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I jsut created this article simply because I relised that while this game was mentioned in several articles there was no article for it. I haven't played it in a long while so I've only added the opening parts of the plot and the first few characters introduced. An article for its sequal should probably also be started. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bisected8 (talk • contribs) 

I've noticed that only the US release date was listed, could someone add the full list (taken from gamefaqs.com);

G Police SCEE 09/30/97 US
G-Police Psygnosis 10/1997 EU
G-Police SCEI 11/19/98 JP
Bisected8 11:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I played this game when my family first got a computer, back when Gateway was the best (that tells you how long it's been...). I'm going to do my best to clean up this article and refine it a little.--Fluke 03:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

IIRC this game was bundled with Gateway 2000 Pentium II CPUs with MMX, and g-police was supposed to "show off" the new MMX instructions. Sneakernets (talk) 21:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

"Set in the year 2089"
I remember that the intro in the game says the game takes place in the year 2097 (Wipeout 2097 reference?) rather than 2089. --Mika1h 17:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it was a Wipeout 2097 reference, just that both games were released in 1997, making the game take place 100 years after it was released. ~~Neo 2.3 Hylan 19:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I have the PC CD-ROM version of this game that came out with my 1998 computer's software bundle.  I believe that the Havoc malfunctions were caused not by the microchip, but rather a virus uploaded by the traitor Ricardo into the avionics systems.  The microchip in the brain was the MOTIVE Nanosoft had for killing these pilots...they wanted to use their recorded piloting/combat skill to function as the basis of their automated systems AI (ships and turrets).  And the ultimate goal was to kill Horten so they could utilize his strategic/tactical brilliance in their new battle-cruiser AI, and thereby possess an unstoppable war machine that would ensure Nanosoft Corporation's complete dominance in the colonies.

It is not necessary to note every little bit of incidental detail in the plot summary, especially not in nonsensical prose. There is no need to note that Slater "didn't intent to join the G-Police permanently" or whatever, because it has no bearing on the wider game. It's just some incidental oh-by-the-way-guys snippet of dialogue with no wider implications, not exactly a deus ex machina. If we were to note that, there's all sorts of other minutiae we would have to give weight to, such as the fact Horton is some big shot war veteran, Horton suspected Krakov all along blah blah. The plot/setting section is already probably longer than the other sections, and thus it should be kept to information important to understanding the game per WP:NOT#PLOT i.e. information critical to the unfolding plot, gameplay, themes, setting etc. bridies (talk) 03:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:G-Police/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

When I read (and copyedited) this article, it struck me that this game's plot is strikingly very similar to Microcosm, another game by Psygnosis developed for PC, Amiga, and Sega Mega-CD a few years before G-Police.
Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 
Some issues:
while working for the titular G-Police. → I don't know about the usage of the word "titular" something else to replace, possibly?
What's wrong with it? Maybe it's a bit redundant... the reader can probably guess we're talking about the same G-Police mentioned in the game's title. bridies (talk) 23:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Good. I think I can see how that word is being used in the context. MuZemike 00:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Early game levels see Slater combating criminal gangs. Corporate involvement (specifically, "Krakov" corporation) is suspected due to the sophisticated nature of the gangs’ weaponry; however Krakov’s president is the subject of an assassination attempt by the gangs, also depicted in playable missions. → Needs a rewrite. Sentence does not flow very well. I suggest split into two sentences and improvement on the cohesion.
Rewritten. bridies (talk) 23:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Good. MuZemike 00:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
The game depicts the aftermath of the conflict between the G-Police and Nanosoft, involving initial battles with gangs attempting to take advantage of the colony's instability, before another war arises between the G-Police and a power hungry leader of Earth's forces (sent to assist the G-Police against the gangs). → Trying to say too much in this one sentence. Split into two sentences to clarify.
Rewritten. bridies (talk) 23:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Good. MuZemike 00:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
There is quite a bit of passive voice throughout the article (change to active voice if possible):
The G-Police commander Horton is assassinated by Slater's traitorous wingman Ricardo, also to this end.
Cheung claimed that the decision to "concentrate on the people inside the machines" was informed by his belief that the game’s plot, setting and characters set G-Police apart from other shooters of the day.
Though Edge disagreed regarding the buildings' detail, praising them, the magazine agreed that the PlayStation's capabilities were stretched too far, though it was less harsh, calling the draw distance the "only fly in the ointment"; the magazine noted that these problems were alleviated somewhat in the PC version.
The missions were also derided as repetitive.
While the graphics were highly praised in addition to plot and sound, the reviewer claimed serious flaws in the gameplay, particularly the unintuitive controls and "downright ludicrous" level of difficulty.
The sequel to the game is G-Police: Weapons of Justice,...
In 2001, a rumoured sequel for the PlayStation 2 was reported.
In 2007, G-Police was made available for download on PlayStation 3.
I think the passive voice is ok there... For the sentences about Horton and the sequels I think it's preferable. It's probably more important that Horton is killed than Ricardo being a traitor. bridies (talk) 23:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
OK. I corrected some instances of passive voice listed above and left a few as it is debatable if active voice can be accomplished. MuZemike 00:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
The Development section seems all over the place and not exactly going from one point to another. Try and reword that section so that you're either going from one reviewer to another or from one aspect (for example, graphics to gameplay to difficulty) to another.
Rearranged it by publication. It's because I wrote half of it about a year ago and tacked the rest on recently. bridies (talk) 23:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Very good. MuZemike 00:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Name who did the reviews (except if it's something like "IGN Staff", then you have to do something different). A good rule of thumb with reviews is to write something like "John Doe from IGN said that...". This pins the material more on the reviewer than on the site itself, and it utilizes active voice.
Done. It's particularly helpful with the GameSpot sources... I left IGN, Edge and Next Gen as the reviews are anonymous, in which case we're relying on the reputation of the publication itself anyway. bridies (talk) 23:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Good. I completely understand not being able to with the IGN, Edge, or Next Gen reviews. MuZemike 00:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Some other extra comments when I copyedited that I should mention (I have already corrected them, but for future reference):
Usage of commas in a list: always place a comma before the conjunction. For example: foo1, foo2, and foo3 taste great.
Only in North America ;) Putting the comma before the conjunction in a list is Oxford style, which is actually unconventional in British English. I see I decided to use US dates in the citations, not sure why I did that... bridies (talk) 23:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Just keep it consistent. You can leave out the commas at the end and change the dates to the common International style, or you can change about everything else. It might be OK to leave the commas out and just change the dates to save work. There are a lot of words using British English in the article, so the rest of the grammar/syntax should reflect that. MuZemike 01:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I changed the date formatting. In any case I think the article should use British English as it was a UK developer/publisher. bridies (talk) 22:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Normally, websites are not italicized, even though nearly all print sources are.
B. MoS compliance: 
While I wouldn't fail on MoS as far as lack of usage of {{citation}} templates is concerned (as long as everything is consistent and within WP:CITE), I strongly recommend using citation templates, as it does make life easier for referencing. Also, citation templates are generally required for Featured Article consideration.
Actually, WP:CITE states: "The use of citation templates is neither encouraged nor discouraged." bridies (talk) 23:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 
Very good coverage.
B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 
A couple of reversions a couple of weeks ago, but nothing close to what I would consider recent edit-warring, which normally quick-fails a GA.
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 
File:G-Police buildings.png and File:Gpolice cockpit.jpg both need better fair-use rationales, particularly the "Purpose of use" and "Replaceable" sections. For the "Replaceable" portion, the normal acceptable statement for nonfree VG screenshots is No free equivalent of this screenshot exists. Other non-free screenshots can be easily provided. For "Purpose of use", spell out why the images are necessary in the article.
Expanded the rationales. bridies (talk) 23:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Good. MuZemike 01:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
I have placed the GA review on hold pending the necessary corrections as mentioned above. MuZemike 20:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
It passes GA, now. One more thing to remember: if you are referencing another article like in the Sequel section, please place a {{main}} template on top of that section to provide a link to that full (well, hopefully full) article. Anyways, good job! MuZemike 00:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

While the opening part of this article claims the draw distance was a negative to reviewers, the options screen in the game has a graphics slider for draw distance, framerate and I think viewing angle increasing one will affect the others negatively.
This is the only console game so far I have seen with such a feature.Atirage (talk) 14:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

How do you prove that an article on IGN misspelled the location of the Psygnosis office? Hope this is sufficent:

"Our objective was to place the gamer at the center of action as dynamic as any Hollywood blockbuster special effects extravaganza, and give the player total control," explained Graham Davis, head producer at Psygnosis' UK Stroud office. "With G Police, we think we've delivered the whole package."
Excerpt from the press release announcing the publishing of G-Poiice, Businesswire, August 4, 1997 fulltext online -- Make (talk) 22:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I realize only now, I have messed up the formatting of the dates. Sorry and thanks for cleaning up. -- I hope that the service findarticles.com will keep the press release online? Cheers -- Make (talk) 13:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't know, but if the link were to go dead it would still be permissible. The press release was presumably republished in various places and formats so it should be fine just to cite the title and date, the online copy is just a useful extra. bridies (talk) 14:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Currently the game is only available to PSN users in the EU region (that is, if you want it from the PSN, you have to live in Europe; obviously it's available second-hand in other formats worldwide). I'm noting as much.predcon (talk) 23:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on G-Police. 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/20091027133302/http://uk.psx.ign.com/articles/160/160600p1.html to http://uk.psx.ign.com/articles/160/160600p1.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) 04:22, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

https://web.archive.org/web/20000311160421/http://headline.gamespot.com/news/97_11/13_gpolice/index.html