# Talk:Wipeout 2097

• Much of this article's text reminds me of text found on the game sleeve notes: some of the text is a direct lift, I think. Copyright?
• The game description's grammatical tense changes from past at the beginning of the article to present toward the end - this needs harmonised for good editorial style. 
• Text colour style is used to highlight colour words: this one not only contravenes good web accessibility principles but it's a bit pointless and where else on wikipedia is this done? "The colors represent the in-game colors of the items." But why?
• Lots of unsubstantiated 'facts' – e.g. "Spilskinanke... is an anagram of Snake Plissken (minus one "S" and switching an I for the E in "Plissken")". This really stretches the boundaries of credibility, nor is it backed up by source/quote.
• Reference to the unlockable final Pirhana ship doesn't touch on the fact that the game goes so fast at this final level (on PS One anyway) that the extreme strobing effect (caused by the striped track graphics whizzing by) makes the game virtually unplayable. I don't have a source for that but clearly recall experiencing it playing the game myself in 1997/98 and noted similar reactions of others too.
• Other criticism below I agree with

I don't wish to unilaterally change most of the Criticism section of this entry, however I feel I have to as the content currently there is seriously lacking. Point by point:

The overt Red Bull advertising present throughout the game was poorly received by some.
I would like to add that the PC version of Wipeout 2097 lacked the Red Bull advertisements. I played it a lot back then, and don't recall seeing any.
By whom exactly?  Without a source this kind of comment is unprovable.

Players also disliked the fact that 2 player mode was only available through the use of the link cable system. The link cable system required 2 playstation consoles connected via the link cable, two television sets, two copies of the game. This was seen as highly impractical and/or expensive, especially when most racing games allowed for 2 player gaming simply by plugging in a second controller and splitting the screen in half.
I agree that this is worthy of criticism, however it must be noted that in the early era of the PlayStation, many of the biggest racing games offered no link-up option.  The other big UK developed racing hit over Xmas 1996 was also from Psygnosis - Formula 1 - which had a similar two player requirement.  From what I remember it was only the launch of the Nintendo 64 (in Europe about six months later in early 1997) which started to change the attitude of the Playstation developers - four player options in the likes of Mario Kart 64 made it much more necessary for the PlayStation versions to include one console multiplayer options.  This was a general early PlayStation phenomenon, not just limited to Wipeout 2097.

Poor support for the later analog controls was also a disappointment.
There is no way you can seriously blame Psygnosis for not implementing analogue controls for an analogue controller which hadn't been announced up to then.  This comment simply has to go.
I'm going to make some serious additions to this piece and comments will be appreciated on my edits. Mikeserieys 06:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Well I for one played XL with Pirahna on Phantom class, full acceleration, perfect lap every time, on any given track. I did not experience any visual artifacts and found it immensely playable. Child's play compared to HD's Phantom mode. Perhaps the original/PAL edition was different, but XL was A ok.
Also I don't know if there is a ton of documentation to back this up, but a lot of industry people consider this game to possibly be a rare perfect game (flawless) ...citing it as the most pure gaming experience ever, perhaps technically the best game ever in an abstract sense. The same people consider the follow up PS1 game a great disappointment, basically an example that the perfection of XL was pure coincidence and did not carry over into Wip3out. Kind of like the Star Wars prequels versus the originals. I think one major advantage this game has over the rest of the series is the up/down nose aiming axis really feels fully integrated into the game, where if you master it you really feel like you're surfing perfection. In the other games it feels like an afterthought that can shave a few seconds off your time at best. --67.54.192.39 (talk) 05:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The Designers Republic was heavily involved in the design of the packaging, iconography (ships, weapons), and design of most of the visual aspects of the in game play (Fonts, course artwork, etc...). One of the first times a design house like that has been so involved in a video game. Their (Crazy Robot) icon is featured on almost every course and it can be seen on their web site http://www.thedesignersrepublic.com/. This game is mentioned on their Wiki page, but this game page does not mention their contributions. - 209.248.175.82 16:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

In the weapons section, mines are mentioned to detonate "only explode upon contact with other craft, or when an X-bomb is detonated in the vicinity" - but the entire article fails to make any other mention of the mysterious 'x-bomb'. The only other 'bomb' weapon is the 'Thunder Bomb' - is that what this should refer to? That might be contradictory, considering both 'quake disruptors' and 'thunder bombs' are explicitly described as being capable of destroying mines... is there a distinction between mine destruction and detonation? I know this isn't a game manual, but it seems needless inconsistent... MattLohkamp 14:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt.lohkamp (talk • contribs)  

This review is transcluded from Talk:Wipeout 2097/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Czar (talk · contribs) 16:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
On the go—will likely be ready next week midweek czar ♔ 16:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Please respond below my signature so as to leave the original review uninterrupted.
Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors: 

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 
lede will need to be expanded after article expansion
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section: 

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: 
some direct quotes need citations (WP:MINREF)
C. No original research: 
gameplay currently unsourced
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 
almost all parts need expansion, sourcing
B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
On hold for a week, though, again, it doesn't quite look like it's there yet. Posting this from the road, so I'll be freer to respond over next weekend

Many of the issues from my other recent GAN reviews hold here too (unsourced Gameplay, small Development, merge-able Music, small Reception, though the latter is a bit better)
source for "stylized" version or for "XL"?
first half of the lede is good, but I'm not sure what's up with the jargon-y controller stuff. Why is that important to the lede? Isn't self-evident.
Did it win any awards?
Is there really nothing on the actual development of the game?
gameplay sections must be sourced
why are some words capitalized? are they proper nouns?
game title needs to be italicized
Visual Attack Formation doesn't appear to be reliable. Run past WP:VG/RS?
Since these are some elementary errors and you're familiar with the GAN process, it's kind of frustrating to have to write about them in a GAN review. Could you please address these in advance next time so we don't waste time? As it stands, this article's issues are clear enough for it not to pass muster. It's going to need a whole lot more work to pass, likely more than it can get in a week if you're going for offline sources too
Along with sourcing the Gameplay, make sure it actually covers the goals and controls first and leaves subjective commentary about how it took a while to acclimate for the Reception section
"Wipeout 2097 moved the franchise forward" non-neutral
Gamefaqs is not a reliable source, must be removed
Use the Google search in WP:VG/RS to find reliable, vetted sources, and...
be sure to use offline (magazine) sources in the Reception—this is a game from 1996 and the article will be missing in breadth without it
could use a screenshot of gameplay
cover could use a fair use template
Image needs to be reduced in size (length times width less than 100,000 pixels)
Why 2097 vs XL? Should be in dev section
How long was development
{{Infobox video game}} uses |media= only where the distribution is ambiguous, which it isn't in this case
two-player modes should be in the prose, not the infobox—the infobox is for quick overviews, and on this note...
Make sure the contents of the infobox are sourced within the article (esp. release dates)
There's virtually nothing on the development, why they made the decisions, who the team/staff was, their budgeting, their goals, their problems, anything
Like the other articles, I think Music can be merged into development, and I don't see the coverage for the 2097 soundtrack where it would warrant its own article nevertheless section.
soundtrack tracklisting should be removed as not independently notable per WPVG consensus
again, discogs not a reliable source
"new storage space of the time" at the time?
XL on its own should still be italicized
full quotes need to be paraphrased unless necessary to leave whole (not the case in Reception)
little need to repeat scores in the prose if they're in the review box
Reception is insufficiently broad, as I can't tell what the reviews thought of the game as a whole apart from the few pull quotes. What did they like or dislike as a whole?
only use two digits of precision with GameRankings, per Template:Video game reviews/doc#Guidelines
czar ♔ 23:35, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Don't worry, I'll get to this either tonight or tomorrow. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 17:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

 Closing, as discussed czar ♔ 16:44, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The first paragraph stated: "It was originally released in 1996 for the PlayStation and PCs running MS-DOS, and in 1997 for the Sega Saturn. It was later ported to the Amiga in 1999 and Mac OS in 2002."
Wipeout 2097 was never available for DOS.
As per the Psygnosis site as archived in June 1997[1], it is a Windows95/DirectX game.
Additionally, other sections of this page have queried the XL/2097 differentiation, this is made clear by the links on earlier versions of the Psygnosis site[2] requiring the user to select XL for North America, and 2097 for anywhere else.
For expansion of the Development section, it may be useful to cite this Coderus document[3] detailing the process of porting to the Mac - a process that apparently only took one week.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2406:E007:5A7A:1:D5F2:1A28:3BD9:E79D (talk) 11:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC) 

This review is transcluded from Talk:Wipeout 2097/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Freikorp (talk · contribs) 00:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Review complete, placing on hold for one week. Freikorp (talk) 01:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
Lead
I'd reword "released in the Wipeout series, and was released a year after the original game in the series" to avoid using the word series twice in one sentence, when there are easy substitutes available.
Changed to "and is the direct sequel of the original game released the previous year" - I hope this doesn't sound too choppy, I can always change it again ☯ Jaguar ☯ 17:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Not a fail point, but is it necessary to wikilink 'PCs running Windows 95' when you could just link 'Windows 95'?
Good point, linked Windows 95 ☯ Jaguar ☯ 17:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Gameplay
Should the first instance of 'Crafts' be capitalised? And I think you should provide a one sentence explanation, in the first paragraph before you start talking about crafts, detailing exactly exactly what one is. It's some kind of weaponised hovercraft, right?
That's right, the vehicles in the game are futuristic hovercraft with weapons, so I've elaborated on what a 'craft' is. I have no idea why the first instance of 'crafts' is capitalised, removed! ☯ Jaguar ☯ 17:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Suggest rewording "fictitious air-brakes" to something like "a fictionalised method of air braking", since there is a such thing as an "air break"
Never knew that... thanks, added "a fictionalised method of air braking" as suggested ☯ Jaguar ☯ 17:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
There's no information on multiplayer modes in the prose.
Added a little on multiplayer in the fourth paragraph to the section. Not a lot to mention as it carries over the two-player split screen option before (which is thanks to the PS1 and Saturn's two controller ports) ☯ Jaguar ☯ 17:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Development
"The player can also take on damage from enemy fire and be blown up, but the ship can be "recharged" to health at the pit stop in exchange for a precious few seconds of the race." Shouldn't this be in the gameplay section?
Good catch, done, and with this I also replaced it from something that looked like original research from the gameplay section ☯ Jaguar ☯ 17:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I think you're doubling up on information here. I've already been told the game was "unlike its predecessor" in that you can now damage opponents crafts with weapons. Also i'm confused, gameplay states that unlike its predecessor, players are "offered the chance to eliminate competition (or at least subdue them temporarily) by the use of weapons" whereas developments states the game has an "array of new weapons in addition to the ones established in the first game". So what do the weapons in the first game do if they don't damage of temporarily immobilise opponents?
In the first game if you hit somebody with a weapon it would merely stall them, ie. slow them down rather than destroy them. I think I've made this clearer ☯ Jaguar ☯ 17:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Is there any information available on why the Playstation soundtrack features multiple artists, yet the other versions were stuck with just the house band?
There is no information about that in the source given, but like the first game I would pin it down to copyright issues as the artists in the PlayStation version would not have given their permission for their music to be launched on a Sega console (this happened with its predecessor). I have added this. ☯ Jaguar ☯ 17:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
The Designer's Republic is linked twice. A link is made to the original game earlier in the article, and also in the next section.
Ugh, fixed! ☯ Jaguar ☯ 17:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Reception
IGN is linked twice.
That's embarrassing, fixed ☯ Jaguar ☯ 17:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Do you need to provide an abbreviation for (PSM) since the magazine is not referred to a second time?
I must have got confused while writing this, removed ☯ Jaguar ☯ 17:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
"IGN noted similar praise", is 'noted' the appropriate word here (also see WP:WORDS)? How about simply 'gave'.
Reworded ☯ Jaguar ☯ 17:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section: 
B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
I think the information that the game took "its inspiration from Formula 1 breakthroughs" needs an inline citation, as does the phrase "Wipeout 2097 moved the franchise forward".
Yep the stuff about "formula 1 breakthroughs" are mentioned 26 times from "The rise and fall of Sony Studio Liverpool" source, so added a citation for that. Also it mentioned that 2097 moved the franchise forward, so added that too. Can't believe I didn't use that source for this article, as I have only used it in the first Wipeout. That source is like a bible for all Wipeout fans! ☯ Jaguar ☯ 17:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
What makes Gamefaqs a reliable source for the statement "To cater for the increase in Wipeout players, an easier learning curve was introduced whilst keeping the difficulty at top end for the experienced gamers"? It's my understanding that Gamefaqs is only really reliable for release dates and non-opinionated stuff like that.
Can't believe I left that in from August! Removed and replaced ☯ Jaguar ☯ 18:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
What makes 'Visual Attack Formation' reliable? Did you take it to RSN as per the last review?
It doesn't appear in the reliable search engine for VG sources (found at WP:VG/RS), which I use as a basic principle. I have removed this from the article ☯ Jaguar ☯ 18:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Discogs content is user-generated, and therefore unreliable. Can you find a better online source, or at least cite the albums themselves?
Sorry for leaving these. in. Unfortunately I couldn't find the album itself but thankfully all music listings in this game is mentioned in the "Rise and fall of SCE Liverpool" source, and also one in a digitalspy reference, so I added them both accordingly. ☯ Jaguar ☯ 17:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
"Many critics praised the unique blend of techno music..." If many critics praised this, can we get more than one reference? Otherwise reword and attribute to single review only.
The music, or more specifically the "unique techno blend" is mentioned in various sources, and I thought it was unnecessary to include all of the citations for that one sentence, so I summarised it in the opening like I do for most receptions. If you want me to I could simply reword it to a single review or cut down on the citations? ☯ Jaguar ☯ 18:19, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Infobox information, particularly release dates, needs reliable sources.
They aren't present in the previous game, which is a GA, and only one release source is present in Wipeout 3, which is FA? I'll try to find sources, but I have brought up a few other VG GAs which do not have sources for release dates, as I didn't think they were required ☯ Jaguar ☯ 18:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
C. No original research:  
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
As  Czar asked in the initial review, considering how well received this game was, did it not win any awards? Are you sure you can't find more information on development? There's still "virtually nothing on the development, why they made the decisions, who the team/staff was, their budgeting, their goals, their problems".
Unfortunately, there is nothing I can find on this game winning awards. All the Wipeout games were very received, with Wipeout 3 winning awards and Wipeout Pure winning a dozen, remaining among the best selling games on the PSP. I have searched various reliable sources, but the only mention I could find was from this source, mentioning that "Wipeout 2097 went Gold" and "this award-winning game to the Mac" but it doesn't say what awards it won, nor what Gold means! I'm sure it did win some, but as I don't have the physical copy I'm afraid I'll never know if it did win anything. And as with the shortage of information, there is a large black hole of information on the internet regarding 90s games like these, so information on development is hard to come by and I hope that "virtually nothing on the development" was an exaggeration from the previous GAN as I have found new information on the "rise and fall" source I found, and have implemented a little in. Hope that helps ☯ Jaguar ☯ 18:19, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
B. Focused: 
Is it neutral? 
Fair representation without bias: 
Is it stable? 
No edit wars, etc:  
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:   
B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
A caption for the inbox picture wouldn't hurt. The picture indicates it is the PAL version though there are Japanese characters on it. What country was this cover art released in?
Good point, it's the European box art, added ☯ Jaguar ☯ 18:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
@Freikorp: thanks for the review! I really appreciate it. I think I have everything, please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks ☯ Jaguar ☯ 18:19, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@Jaguar: Thanks for addressing these concerns. I am satisfied the article meets GA requirements. Citations for release dates wold be nice, but I guess they are not necessary. Fair enough about the lack of development for a 90s game. I'd prefer if you added at least another inline citation for the " Many critics praised the unique blend of techno music" sentence, but as long as other sources used in the article mention it i'm satisfied. My only final concern is that "or at least subdue them temporarily" still appears in gameplay; can you clarify what the difference between stalling (in the original game) and temporarily subduing is? The sentence seems to imply that you could not temporarily subdue someone in the previous game. Nevertheless i'm happy to pass this article now. Cheers. Freikorp (talk) 22:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your helpful review, Freikorp! I have got to that immediately as I would hate to leave a GA half finished. I reworded it to "offered the chance to eliminate other players from the competition through the use of weapons", added two inline citations that has praise of the music in their reviews, and will also try to find something on its release dates, as I'm sure it's out there somewhere. Anyway, thanks for the review, I'll finish your GANs tomorrow morning! ☯ Jaguar ☯ 22:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

mentioning that "Wipeout 2097 went Gold" and "this award-winning game to the Mac" but it doesn't say what awards it won, nor what Gold means!
@Jaguar and Freikorp, FYI, going gold is when the game is finalized for release czar ⨹ 15:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks czar, I knew that "going gold" was a term for the game being ready for a release, but I originally thought that it was used in a different context on that source. Strange because I still need to find sources for the original Wipeout awards! ☯ Jaguar ☯ 19:24, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Is it? If so, why?--62.242.41.180 (talk) 00:07, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

This past January someone altered sourced material to say that Tantalus rather than Perfect Entertainment developed the Saturn version. I double-checked the source and there is indeed no mention of Tantalus; however, it refers to Perfect also having coded the Saturn version of Manx TT, which is well-established to have been contracted out to Tantalus by Perfect. So it makes sense to me that Perfect could have likewise contracted Wipeout 2097 out to Tantalus, and the source could be using "Perfect Entertainment" as a general term in reference to the various studios used by Perfect. That said, I haven't run across a source supporting this yet, so for now I'm removing the claim with regard to the Saturn version's developer. If anyone knows more, please post here (or better yet, add the correct developer to the article with reliable source attached).--Martin IIIa (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I have been reading through the references because I've been translating the article to another language, and going through the Gameplay section I have big problems verifying the stated.
For example:

Though the crafts move at very high straight-line speeds, Wipeout takes its inspiration from Formula 1 breakthroughs by aspiring for even greater turning speeds -- the source given is http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-03-22-wipeout-the-rise-and-fall-of-sony-studio-liverpool , and I see absolutely nothing in it.
Similarly, Each craft has a shield energy quota, and when this quota reaches zero—either from damage sustained from weapon attacks, or impact from other craft or the edges of the circuit—the craft blows up. The craft also blows up if the time limit is reached, though this only applies to human players. The biggest weapon introduced in 2097 was the Quake Disruptor, which has been a series hallmark ever since. - the source given is the same http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-03-22-wipeout-the-rise-and-fall-of-sony-studio-liverpool, and I'm failing to corroborate it.
Additionally, the air-braking part, Using the Formula 1 parallel, rather than using aerodynamics to increase wheel grip by down-force for faster turning speeds, Wipeout uses a fictionalised method of air braking for ever greater turning force. Just moving a craft left or right alone is very responsive, but by applying an air-brake in the direction of movement, players zip around very tight turns at near top speed, including those greater than 90 degrees. By applying an air-brake, the turn starts out gradually but as it continues, change in direction increases sharply. is not in both sources given.
This issue has existed since the good article status listing, and I don't know how to handle this except to nominate to remove the status. Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 19:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I have took a liberty to fully rewrite the Gameplay section, hopefully it should be fully verifiable now. Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 23:27, 8 September 2024 (UTC)