# Talk:Out Run

The last bullet entry about some song Magical Sound Shower seems to have nothing to do with Out Run. I'd have someone figure out how it got on the page.
32.210.46.21 (talk) 21:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Magical Sound Shower is one of the three songs in the Out Run soundtrack, so it is valid. Indrian (talk) 22:01, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I remember seeing this movie called Donnie Darko (someone made an article about it if you want to see it: Donnie Darko) and in the movie he was playing this game. Donnie was at an arcade with the girl he likes and the he was playing the game and she was talking about...well I don't know what she was talking but the scene ended with Donnie "crashing" the car on the side and being all right, meaning he meant to do it .I just wanted to point that out and hope someone would add this to this article under the trivia section. I would put it in but I'm still new to this Wiki stuff. Not to mention I only watched the movie once so if anyone out there can elaborate that, Ive be thankful.
Oh and I dont understand that Summary thing so plz dont be angry for me not filling it.

I played around with Wiki so I decided to just go ahead and input the Donnie Darko reference, where he is playing the game but I only saw the film once cuz it belonged to someone else and I had to return it. Anyways anyone who saw the film, feel free to elaborate it more. - TKGB

I checked out that Donnie Darko movie again and couldn't find a scene with OutRun in it, there isn't even any scene in an arcade. BdR

  
The donnie darko scene is a deleted scene that can be viewed in the extra features. Will

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.73.89.132 (talk) 18:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC) 
Removed as trivia - passing references in films are questionable; deleted scenes more so. Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelinesCpaaoi (talk) 16:32, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Boys/men are not brunette, boys/men are brown haired. Ladies are brunette.
Well, first of all, the word was initially "brunet", which, at least in the original French language, is the masculine of "brunette", so there's someone out there who changed it, and who doesn't get the difference between "brunet" and "brunette". 2004-12-29T22:45Z 17:30, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
WTF ? In french we say "brun" or "brune", "brunette" is purely english and I've never seen "brunet" ever.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.165.19.210 (talk) 18:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC) 

It talks about pence, it should make reference to at least the US dollar, and Yen if anyone knows.

Some players consider that the easiest route was that leading to Goal A (i.e. by turning left at each fork), and the most challenging was that leading to Goal E.
I removed this and it's been put back again. I removed it because I think that what some players consider easy or hard is pretty irrelevent, and it certainly fall foul of NPOV. I'll leave it alone for now, but I'll remove it again unless anyone comes up with a good defence for it...
Removed again.

The game itself labels the upper routes as "easy" and the lower as "hard" on the map screen. Tim (Xevious) 16:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Oops, that's OutRun 2 ... Tim (Xevious) 16:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The page states "The camera is placed near the ground, simulating a Ferrari driver's position and limiting the player's view into the distance". Its anything but close to the ground, infact the POV is centred at about the height the overhead gantry signs. This is clearly incorrect.

I removed the Sony PSP from the release list. The only OutRun game to hit the PSP is OutRun 2006 Coast 2 Coast, which is not a port of OutRun. If it was released on the PSP as part of another game, then edit it back in under the appropriate section with the name of the game it is featured in.

My feeling is that some of the facts stated below the route plan could be construed as original research. I don't think it is appropriate to explain what can be deduced from the route plan. I would particularly question the "most time efficient route" (and this is mainly why I added the template) - on what basis was this worked out and how is it verifiable? Perhaps these routes are the shortest, but they may not be the easiest. Halsteadk 18:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Sumo Digital worked on the original? I thought they were only involved with the development of OutRun 2006: Coast 2 Coast. Clarify, please. Alex (talk) 07:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Great, some bot ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:XLinkBot ) took out the link to the YouTube clip of that drunk driving PSA and now its gone back to saying "citation needed."
I'm not going to put the link back up immediately since I know better but I'd at least like a bit of a discussion over whether this was the right thing to do or if there's an alternative course of action.
So pissed over it, bots can't appreciate the context of a link, it removed it purely because it was a YouTube link.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.234.88.254 (talk) 10:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC) 
Removed: unsupported by given source. Cpaaoi (talk) 16:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Was there a PC-DOS-specific version as the article says, or does it just mean MS-DOS on the IBM PC compatible? Cpc464 (talk) 06:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

PC-DOS/MS-DOS are intercompatible. Software for one will run on the other. 2fort5r (talk) 21:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The heading says “ports” but this was an 80s arcade game and the games listed were conversions, not ports. Back in the 80s, there was very little porting being done. I tried changing the title to “conversions” but someone changed it back. Can anyone give a good reason for this saying “ports”? Otherwise I will change this back to “conversions” in a few days’ time.
Grand Dizzy (talk) 20:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The standard section on Wikipedia is called Ports, hence the change.  And while you may believe what you're saying, that's not industry standard -  Port and  Conversion are interchangeable, and have been used as such since that time.  They define the process of moving a game property from one platform to another, and do not imply a specific process.  A simple look at interviews with programmers from the time such as here and the many notable interviews here, verifies this. In fact in the Halcyon interviews, Port is actually used much more often by the industry veterans to describe it.  --Marty Goldberg (talk) 21:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer, Marty. I’m still not convinced though. Read the Wikipedia entry for porting, under “Porting in gaming”. This says that early “ports” were not true ports, because they weren’t actually ported. (Also note the Wikipedia article Video_game_conversion which, oddly, refers to all ports and conversions as “conversions”.)
I have been a big fan of videogames since the 80s, owning many different home computers, but I don’t ever remember hearing the expression “port” until the mid 90s (at the earliest). That’s not to say porting didn’t exist back then, it did (games were ported between home computers), but it wasn’t called porting. And any arcade games on a home computer was called a “conversion”. I must have read that word thousands of times as a kid: Spectrum conversions, C64 conversions, Amiga conversions, Atari ST conversions. There was no such phrase as an “arcade port” in those days.
If there is a Wikipedia policy on all conversions being called “ports”, is this a specific page that you can point me in the direction of, or are you just inferring the policy based on the number of games Wikipedia mentions which do (quite correctly) list “ports”?
Either way, I think all pages regarding converting/porting need to be updated and made consistent, either to discriminate between what is technically a conversion and a port, or to enforce the re-naming of all conversions as “ports”. Although I don’t see any reason for the latter personally. There are two different words because they mean two different things. Merging them into one word loses clarity and gains nothing. If you can explain what is gained by merging the two, I am happy to hear it, but I can’t understand it at present.
Analogy: here is an analogy. In the 70s, music was on vinyl. Now music is on CD. CD is the modern-day equivalent of vinyl. But if you wrote a Wikipedia article about a 1970s artist, you wouldn’t refer to their hits as “CDs”, just because CDs is the modern equivalent. That would be incorrect. If you wanted uniformity across all your articles, however, you might refer to their hits using a general term that can apply to both vinyl and CD, such as “records” or “recordings”. Transferring this back to our original scenario, you can’t call a conversion a “port” because that’s a modern equivalent, but not the same thing. If you want uniformity, you need a general term that covers both conversions and ports. I don’t believe either of the two terms covers both, so the best you could do for a generic term would be “conversions and ports”. But you can’t treat them both as the same thing because they’re not.
A conversion has been painstakingly recreated based on the original. People have spent a lot of time developing it and it is effectively a new game (many conversions in the 80s often were radically different from the original game). A port, however, is just the same game tweaked to work on a different system. It is by definition a clone of the original, only adjusted to fit the hardware limitations of the new machine. These two things are very different. They have nothing in common apart from the fact that they both transfer a game from one platform to another.
They can also be described as “emulation” and “simulation”. A port is an emulation, while a conversion is a simulation. Emulation geeks will tell you they are fundamentally different things. The game Pong was removed from MAME because it was deemed to be a simulation and not an emulation, since the game was hardware only, so there was no ROMs/code to emulate. MAME is strict about only supporting emulations, in other words (ports) and not simulations (conversions).
Grand Dizzy (talk) 23:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Should we add in the PSN version of Outrun Online Arcade?

It seems "OutRun" versus "Out Run" and such is just a very inconsistent issue, so I'll document it here for the hell of it.
The flyers for the original game use "Out Run" and even "アウト ラン". Apparently Sega stopped doing this for Turbo, as the American flyers clearly use "Turbo OutRun" while the Japanese flyer uses "ターボ アウトラン" (interestingly, there was an "amusement machine guide" set of flyers in 1991--well after Turbo--that features the original game and uses "Out Run"). OutRunners is almost the same as Turbo OutRun (with the exception of the German flyer, for some reason); nearly all instances outside the logo are fully capitalized, but the American flyer has "Outrunners" at the bottom. Both Sega Ages versions of OutRun just use that, which is also when they brought in the new logo.
Then we have OutRun 2, which finally uses "OutRun" in a consistent manner, going as far as to refer to the original game as such; in exchange, the number is made somewhat ambiguous. Every single logo bunches "OutRun2" together; this works for Japan as there aren't supposed to be spaces in the language. The fun part is that most European flyers kept this convention (in print) until SDX and 2006 (port), while pretty much every American port and flyer simply split the number from the beginning (still in print).
Currently, none of this considers the various ports aside from OutRun 2's, or games such as Battle/Europa/2019. Despatche (talk) 11:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

So are you saying that the original game should always be Out Run, with the space? I'd like to fix this up on the page, which currently uses both Out Run and OutRun about 50 times each. And if Out Run is indeed correct I will have to move the page as well to fix the title. Jeferman (talk) 20:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Guess I was here before. Yep, that's exactly what I'm saying; keep whatever the material uses when talking about that material. "Out Run" for the original game, "OutRun" in the titles of ports which use that, so on and so forth. I think it might be fair to refer to the series as "OutRun" as far as consistency goes? Despatche (talk) 06:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Nice! I'm liking everything you've done. Jeferman (talk) 14:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Out Run. 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/20160125144902/http://imame4all.googlecode.com/svn-history/r146/Reloaded/trunk/src/mame/video/segaic16.c to http://imame4all.googlecode.com/svn-history/r146/Reloaded/trunk/src/mame/video/segaic16.c
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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:24, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

- - Moved from my talk page to here - -Cpaaoi (talk) 15:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Sage X: You've twice now removed something I added to the Outrun page, which is: "Japanese pop singer Seiko Matsuda can be seen playing the arcade version of Out Run in the music video for her 1987 song Strawberry Time."
Why did you remove it a second time after you saw that Outrun is in the video? I understand removing an unofficial link, but there was no need to remove the whole thing again. You only removed it the first time around due to your inability to find a copy of the video, as you wrote that you checked "several videos available on yt and none of them appear to feature outrun". The correct thing to do would have been to simply remove the link/bad reference instead of the whole thing, aka the way it was before you removed it the first time.
I had tried to find written references when I added it originally, but if there's nothing and if there's no official uploads to link to as a reference then not having a reference is how it is. It obviously can be easily checked by looking up the video, plus the video has been released on numerous DVDs of hers. The addition is definitely notable enough to be included on the page.'' Sage X (moved here by Cpaaoi (talk) 15:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC))

When I came to this page, it was in a mess, full of unsourced and questionable material and repetitive and unhelpful information.  I hope I've been able to tidy it up properly.  There has been an issue with the removal of much of the 'popular culture' at the bottom, which previously had inaccurate and trivial information.  One editor, Sage, has queried my judgement on this, on my talk page, when really the discussion belongs here.  The points Sage makes seem to reinforce my point of view and in fact have encouraged me to trim the list even further.
The 'inability' cited by Sage of me to find the video myself suggests the triviality of the reference to Strawberry Time.  I am certain that fans of Matsuda would know exactly where to look, but this video did not present itself upon a fairly general search, which in itself suggests a lack of notability - we are not talking Phil Collins or Justin Bieber here!  Sage also suggests that without the link, the comment should survive on the page.  This would seem to violate the Wikipedia principle outlined on the Wikipedia:Video links page to which I had directed Sage, which says "Primary sources, such as an episode of an editor's favorite television program, can easily be incorrectly used to create trivia sections. This should be avoided."  It also seems to veer slightly towards OR, which, given the unnecessary nature of the point is not a risk worth taking.
If Matsuda's video had inspired some of the sequels to the game, for example, or had her video been mentioned in any kind of literature to which Sage is free to point me if such exists, then there would be a good case for including this piece of trivia.  When, in fact, this piece of trivia contributes nothing to the reader's understanding of the game other than that it happens to appear in a music video which is not mentioned in any source material, I think Sage's claim of 'notability' is misleading.
Also, given that the video cited by Sage does not originate from a verified publisher, it needs to be demonstrated that the video in question is genuine and has not been doctored in any way - again, impossible to determine without a verified publisher and a lack of source material.  Moreover, given that other entries in the 'popular' section were shown to be misleading or outright false (and now also removed - no one is picking on Matsuda), I had to draw a circle of suspicion around whatever else had been added to this article.  It is the inclusion of things like Strawberry Time which are the reason that this article has had a box at the top citing "multiple problems" with this article for most of the past decade.
I'm not into edit-warring, but I'm also not going to get into a personal match with Sage on my talk page, so I'd like to see what others think: my opinion is firmly that Strawberry Time (and the like) is unsourced and tangential material. Cpaaoi (talk) 14:23, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Also, for absolute clarity: I've just had a re-read of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines... regarding pop culture references, games mentioned in passing (even if visually shown or even specifically named) are deemed not worth mention.  Further even: "Having a brief mention in the midst of a song doesn't warrant inclusion."  And further: Trivia: Such information should be integrated into appropriate areas of the article. - and there is nowhere 'appropriate' to put this, for the reason that Matsuda has no real connection with the game Cpaaoi (talk) 15:19, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Further, I've also removed the reference to the drink-driving announcement - the source (like most of the rest of this section) did not support the claim.Cpaaoi (talk) 15:38, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Have also nominated the list of ports for deletion, regarding Wikipedia guideline: Exhaustive version histories: A list of every version/beta/patch is inappropriate. Consider a summary of development instead((Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines)).  We already have a development summary earlier in the page; this could easily subsume the remainder of the list.Cpaaoi (talk) 15:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

You said "which in itself suggests a lack of notability - we are not talking Phil Collins or Justin Bieber here!" Really? Let me put it this way, a Japanese video game being featured shortly after its release in a major music video production of a number one song by Seiko Matsuda herself is not notable enough to be featured in the "In popular culture" bit? Trivia like that is what "In popular culture" is for. Strawberry Time was the number one song for all of May 1987 in Japan. This is as big and notable an endorsement for the game there is. I was just going to make a quip about why should you leave stuff like the bit about Donnie Darko in the popular culture bit, yet I see you already removed that too. Why don't you just delete the whole article while you're at it? Is the game being shown in a major American motion picture not notable enough to be mentioned either?
Again, if nobody made written mention of the fact that Outrun is in the video then what reference is there to use? Let me make this clear again: the video is online, not just on YT but also on Dailymotion plus I would assume also on Niconico and Youku. There are multiple copies of the same video online. Imagine if, for whatever reason, there were no official uploads of Michael Jackson videos on the web anywhere. Would that stop people from being able to talk about them on Wikipedia even though maybe not every single second of every video has a legit written account somewhere, like the Outrun part of this video? No, they've been released on numerous DVDs and seen millions of times on TV, again, just like this video. This is how it is with old Japanese music videos, due to rights issues there are no official uploads for a lot of old videos like these, that doesn't mean they're not notable as you seem to think. You clearly aren't aware who Seiko is, so why do you say that this isn't notable?
But, whatever. If you wanna let other people decide here that's fine, though I wonder if anyone is even gonna bother to read all of this. Sage X (talk) 03:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Many thanks for your continued interest in this matter.  It seems to me that there are five replies to be made, so let me respond -
1) Matsuda may well be huge in Japan, but there is no debate that she has not had the universal success enjoyed by other performers from around the world, from ABBA to Shakira, or even that of groups like Men at Work and Ladysmith Black Mambazo.  However, the question of fame is only one part of the equation.  The guidelines explicitly state that the simple inclusion of a video game in a film (for example) is not enough, by itself, to warrant inclusion in a Wikipedia article.  It would have to show that it is a necessary part of that film, or that it tells us something useful or interesting about the original game.  Take, for example, Neon Neon's musical project about the DMC-12: the car and its history are fundamentally a part of the artistic statement being made.  I have not yet been shown that Out Run is a necessary or important element in the expression of, or the success of, Strawberry Time, or that it tells us anything important about Yu Suzuki or Sega.  Matsuda could just as easily have been playing another video game and I fully and completely doubt that it would have had an appreciable effect on the nature of her product, or its reception.
2) Your rhetorical question which asks if there are no references, then how is one to make references? is naturally self-defeating: if there is no reference material available, then there is no material to which to refer!  Could it be that there is no reference material on this matter for the reason that no writer has thought it important enough to write about?  Your hypothetical scenario of an absence of Michael Jackson videos is, I think, a false one: if all the videos mysteriously vanished tonight, I could readily pick up any one of a thousand published books detailing Jackson's career and work.  I am willing to be contradicted on this, but I've just had a look on the Japanese Amazon website, and I cannot find a single published book on Matsuda.
3) You are quite right; I had until a few days ago never heard of Matsuda, but there are other explanations for this, I think, beyond my own proven ignorance.
4) As for your suggestion of deleting the whole article because of the deletion of irrelevancies - there is no fear of that: the deletion of irrelevancies does not extend to relevancies!
5) You have made an interesting point that 'this is the way it is with old Japanese videos'.  Rather than complaining about the removal of unsourced material from Wikipedia, would it not be more productive to write and publish your own book on this subject?  There is clearly some kind of gap in the market, and, if you are correct about the overwhelming popularity of singers like Matsuda you would surely stand to make many, many millions!  (And we'd all have a source to which to refer!)
All the best :)   Cpaaoi (talk) 20:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Regarding SamEtches' move to put Donnie Darko back in the article: the claim is that it features prominently - my understanding is that it does not feature prominently, but is seen briefly in one scene that did not make it into the original version of the film.  The film is not about cars, or racing, or video games, and is not essential in any respect to the plot: had Donnie been playing Final Fantasy 73 or Jet Set Willy, airplane engines would still be falling from the sky!  By all means have a mention of OutRun on the Donnie Darko pages (as I see it is on the Director's Cut page), but it doesn't belong here, since it adds nothing whatever to the reader's understanding of Yu Suzuki or his game or AM2 or SEGA.  There could be a case for inclusion if, for example, Suzuki had played a part in the film's production, but the dismembered factoid ("game shown on film") is a matter for the film, not for this game, as things currently stand.  (I'm trying to imagine a scenario in which a future edition of OutRun features Jake Gyllenhaal and Frank sitting in the Ferrari - now that would be worth mentioning in this article!)  Cpaaoi (talk) 14:22, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Have removed version list.  There is no important information here which is not in, or implied by, the main article or the review infobox.  Also, completely unsourced despite request.  Please see WP:VGG#Inappropriate content.  Many thanks! Cpaaoi (talk) 13:25, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Out Run. 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/20160304034742/http://cgfm2.emuviews.com/txt/s16tech.txt to http://cgfm2.emuviews.com/txt/s16tech.txt
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140318183606/http://cgfm2.emuviews.com/txt/loftech.txt to http://cgfm2.emuviews.com/txt/loftech.txt
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.1up.com/features/disappearance-suzuki-part-1?pager.offset=2
Added {{dead link}} tag to ftp://ftp.worldofspectrum.org/pub/sinclair/magazines/Crash/Issue49/Pages/
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) 13:34, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Out Run. 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 {{dead link}} tag to ftp://ftp.worldofspectrum.org/pub/sinclair/magazines/ACE/Issue02/Pages/
Added {{dead link}} tag to ftp://ftp.worldofspectrum.org/pub/sinclair/magazines/TheGamesMachine/Issue03/Pages/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160106140403/http://www.ysrnry.co.uk/articles/outrun.htm to http://www.ysrnry.co.uk/articles/outrun.htm
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) 17:42, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Out Run/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Indrian (talk · contribs) 00:57, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

No, no, stop rolling your eyes, seriously!  This one is short.  It will be a nice palette cleanser from my writing.  If I have not posted a review by the end of the weekend, you have my permission to murder me in my sleep. Indrian (talk) 00:57, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I laughed a little bit when I read this.  I look forward to seeing your review and buffing this up as needed.  Red Phoenix talk 12:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Look a review!  And in the promised time frame no less!


### Lead
"It is known for its pioneering hardware and graphics and innovative features such as a selectable soundtrack with music composed by Hiroshi Kawaguchi, along with nonlinear gameplay." - This sentence goes on a bit. Are you considering the nonlinear game play one of its innovative features?  If yes, then it should be joined with "and" without the comma. If not, it feels really tacked on and would be better as part of a new sentence.


### Gameplay
I think we could be a little clearer on how the stages and the timer work.  Namely, that the timer counts down over each stage of the journey and that it resets once you reach a checkpoint at the end of the stage.


### Development
I think I would switch around the sentences in the second paragraph to be more chronological. It comes across as disjointed when you say "the game was based on a tour of Europe, but he actually almost toured the United States instead."
"On the same trip, while in Monaco," - In context I think its clear this is on the same trip.
"Development of Out Run was done by a small team of four programmers" - Passive voice.


### Reception
"The 1991 Sega Genesis version also received positive reviews." - I assume you were unable to find any reviews to quote, but this really feels like a weird afterthought after the detail lavished on the other ports.

The Génération 4 reference for Atari ST is wrong. It's here, n° 5 [1]. I don't find the Génération 4 refence for Amiga... regards --Archimëa (talk) 22:38, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
I see what happened here.  Fixed.  Red Phoenix talk 21:06, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Golden joystick awards are 1988, no ? [2] --Archimëa (talk) 22:42, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Reception box fixed - it was correct in the prose.  Surprised I didn't catch that. Red Phoenix talk 21:06, 26 April 2019 (UTC)


### Legacy
There is a nice interview on shmuplations with one of Sega's earliest and longest-tenured employees in which he discusses the role that Out Run and other taikan games played in revitalizing Sega's arcade fortunes in the mid 1980s. I think that would be a nice addition to either the reception or the legacy section.
All in all, a good article.  I will put the nomination  On hold while concerns are addressed.

@Indrian: Thanks for the review.  I believe I have everything addressed.  Red Phoenix talk 14:26, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
@Red Phoenix: Just so you know, this week is insane, and I may not finish this until next week.  This was a complete review not a first pass, so I fully expect to pass it next week. I just need a block of time where I can give the article one more close read. Indrian (talk) 07:45, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
It's all good.  I understand you have a busy schedule.  Red Phoenix talk 12:07, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Okay, I made a few more tweaks to the prose, and I am ready to promote. Well done! Indrian (talk) 14:06, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

There is absolutely no way this series is called "Out Run". In all the trademarks from Sega as well as the former PSN listing of OutRun Online Arcade, the name has always been a conjoined "Outrun". Does anyone have the evidence to challenge this? --Platvile (talk) 07:13, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

If you reference the sources for the article, quite a few use “Out Run”.  So does the copyright filed in the US for the game. Red Phoenix talk 18:25, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Also, this article isn’t about the series.  It’s just the first game. Red Phoenix talk 18:26, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

There is a trick to see similar cars but with other colours and lights.
the trick consist of insert the coin just the fourth time the credits appear during demo mode (its mandatory to complete one time at least a route)88.29.186.37 (talk) 20:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

In this interview Hiroshi Kawaguchi mentions his inspirations for this score:

"As for musicians, I'd say Naoya Matsuoka and Casiopea. I don't think the music for Out Run would have been created if I hadn't listened to Naoya Matsuoka's music."
2804:D4B:790C:C500:98F4:950D:32D4:BB0B (talk) 05:30, 3 March 2025 (UTC)