# Talk:Metal Fatigue (video game)

The main units in Metal Fatigue are twenty-story tall "Combots," which can be configured and customized part-by-part and dominate the game.
Where did this info come from? If you look at the pilot unit ingame a combot is something like 3 or four stories maybe. Pharod42 22:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Look at the cinematics or the cover. The pilot unit is only so big, because you have to be able to select them. Like in many other strategy games humans are generally to big compared to other units, houses etc. --80.138.117.242 16:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I still have my Metal Fatigue manual.  I'll look it up now. 72.192.54.23 (talk) 23:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

"Combots
Combots are large, highly mobile robots that are extremely versatile and very powerful."

That's the only mention of Combot size I saw in the manual.  Removing the twenty stories thing. 72.192.54.23 (talk) 23:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

According to the GamePro review [1], Metal Fatigue was "a smash hit" in Europe. The article suggests that it bombed in general.—Graf Bobby (talk) 23:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
well, it certainly was a "smash hit" in Tønsberg - Norway, me and my brothers and many of my friends played this game ^^ Divinity76 (talk) 15:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it is also worth to mention that the game takes place at three areas at the same time (subsurface, surface, space) and you can travel between them. – 91.4.12.217 (talk) 16:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

sorry about thisAuricBlofeld (talk) 02:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Refs 
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-616901_ITM
http://www.avault.com/reviews/pc/metal-fatigue/
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/metalfatigue/index.html
http://pc.ign.com/objects/010/010250.html
http://download.nytimes.com/Metal-Fatigue-demo/9100-7562_4-10041036.html?tag=tab_pub
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/metalfatigue
AuricBlofeld (talk) 02:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

For any of you interested, I suggest that a reception section be created. and perhaps a story.AuricBlofeld (talk) 04:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Metal Fatigue (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 http://web.archive.org/web/20110615201328/http://www.avault.com/reviews/pc/metal-fatigue/2/ to http://www.avault.com/reviews/pc/metal-fatigue/2/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
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 16:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Metal Fatigue (video game)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Vrxces (talk · contribs) 04:19, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: PresN (talk · contribs) 19:17, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Reviewing this! I do GAN reviews by listing issues I see as I read through the article, rather than using a checklist template.

The infobox lists Nightdive Studios as the WW publisher, but doesn't give a WW release date (31 July 2018) Y I see the issue, it's a later reissue. Let's just omit for clarity they are not the original publishers.
The lede starts off with saying that the game is (also known as Metal Conflict), which is never stated anywhere in the article and also doesn't explain where or why (e.g. was that the EU name? A pre-release name?) Y Corrected the headline, found a European RS that reviews the game under this title, and cited it.
At 1 paragraph / 5 sentences, the lede is a bit short. Specifically, it's missing at least one sentence each on the plot and the development; it jumps straight from gameplay to reception. Y
Gameplay needs a description of the game presentation- e.g. is this a top-down view of a (3-layer) 2D battlefield? Y
"Across each mission, players will receive a briefing, undertake the mission, and receive a debrief to progress the story." - double-use of "mission", also, is there no plot that takes place during the missions or is that combat only? Y Nope, this thing is not quite StarCraft - not a lot of plot.
"Before the game begins, there is a prebuild phase" - before each mission, you mean? Or is this a skirmish mode-only thing? Y No, you're right, this happens before every mission.
"The orbital layer can be better traversed by aerial units." - better traversed or only traversed? Y Good pickup. I've made it much more clear.
"that influence their ability to deliver different damage types" - this is the only mention of damage types; what are they?
"The ruins of civilizations which appear..." - should be swapped with the previous sentence, since the following paragraph focuses on Hedoth Prime, not the whole galaxy Y
"are set on Hedoth Prime and each dedicated to playing as one of the three lead characters..." - each "is" dedicated? Or better as "each follows one of the three lead characters..." Y
"After the discovery, the CorpoNations..." - The discovery of what? Live Hedoth, or their technology? Y
"In the game's conclusion, the Hedoth reveal themselves as a test for the humans..." - are the Hedoth going to be the test, or was whatever the corpoNations were fighting over the test? Y
Add years after Technoclash and Mr. Bones, e.g. Technoclash (1993) and Mr. Bones (1996); also note that Mr. Bones is linking to a movie and not Mr. Bones (video game) Y
"The game was the last to be published in the United States by Psygnosis" - I'm confused, but they didn't publish the game in the US at all, as the next sentence makes clear. Do you mean "Before the game was released, however, Psygnosis closed their American division in April 2000, and sold the US publishing rights to TalonSoft." Y Yep, looks like I used a contemporary source without thinking. I've simplified that section.
"The game was finalised for gold master in July 2000." -> "The game was finalised for gold master in July 2000, for release that month." That said, if all you have is a release month, then the infobox should not have a precise date of 31 July. Also, the infobox says it came in in Europe on 18 May, which is nowhere to be found in this section.   This is a common dilemma for older games. Agree the gold master date is unhelpful. The best I can find is a "this week" publication date by a source published on the same day the sources say it was released. I'll keep digging.
Interestingly, AllGame says that the European release was 2 June 2000, not 18 May: [2] Y After extensive searching, I have finally found a primary source from the Metal Fatigue website that puts the German release date at 18 May consistent with the MobyGames dates: [3].
"However, Computer Games Magazine considered the preview's graphics..." -> "Computer Games Magazine, however, considered the preview's graphics..." Y I'll just remove the 'however' given strictly the MOS sees it as WP:EDITORIAL anyhow.
"...whether its gameplay additions were innovative, with some considering the game to be innovative, and others considering it at best on par" - double-use of "innovative" (and considering in the rest of the sentence); try "...whether its gameplay additions were innovative, with some feeling that they were, and others considering the game at best on par..." Y Wow, that was a brain fart on my end when writing that.
"Computer Gaming World considered the game..." -> "Computer Gaming World said that the game..." Y
"Computer Games Magazine expressed the game..." -> ""Computer Games Magazine expressed that the game..." (or just "said that", you don't need to avoid 'said' like it's the plague) Y
"reviewers considered the game's other units were limited" - see MOS:SAID, "considered" drags in implications that you don't mean - they're not still thinking about it, they're telling you their opinion. "reviewers felt that the game's other units were limited". Y
The reception section has an over-reliance on direct quotes; this is largely ok at the GA level, but the last paragraph is really over-doing it. Drop or paraphrase some of the short quotes like "relentless" and "complexity". Y I've removed a few single-word quotes to pare it down for the time being.
Not a big deal, but if you're going to include ISSNs sometimes (ref 26), you should be consistent about it with other magazines. Y I can just omit - hunting down magazine ISSNs seems like it wouldn't add value.
As a note, a lot of editors agree that ISSNs don't have a lot of value. I personally include them because I like unique identifiers, but ultimately the point of a reference is to identify the source, and you almost never need more than a magazine name and date to identify an article. --PresN 03:56, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
Going to accept the use of Combatsim as a source since it's an interview, though otherwise I don't think it's an RS Y Agree, I typically only use non-RS if they interview a developer, which is a source of primary information that cannot be replicated by any other source. Matter of degree though - obviously interviews about the same material on better sources are preferred.
No issues found in spotchecks
That's it! --PresN 19:17, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks mate, a high-quality review as ever. I will complete this shortly and ping you. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 20:53, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
@Vrxces: Hi, reminding you of this. --PresN 02:15, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Thanks. I think that's everything. Man it felt good to finally have some evidence of that release date. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 05:05, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
Alright, promoting to GA! --PresN 13:53, 9 November 2025 (UTC)