Talk:Platformer/Archive 1

message: Shadow Hog posted: "BUG! does not have 3D models; where are you getting that?"
: From the developer's page on Bug!: "All of the levels and characters are rendered in glorious 3D, allowing complete freedom of movement." -- Realtime Associates Shawnc 07:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe the developer meant "pre-rendered" by the word "rendered"? Shawnc 07:21, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Bug!

message: Let's refrain from using unclear, ambiguous wordings such as "more truly 3D". Shawnc 06:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Wording issues

message: The last edit deleted this paragraph:
The advent of 3D platformers brought a change in the goals of some platformers. In most 2D platformers, the player only had to reach a single goal to complete a level, but in many 3D platformers, each level had to be combed for collectable items such as puzzle pieces (Banjo-Kazooie) or stars (Super Mario 64). This allowed for more efficient use of large 3D areas and rewarded the player for thorough exploration, but some found collecting countless trinkets more tedious than challenging. Donkey Kong 64 was widely criticized because of how the player had to frequently rotate between five different characters in order to pick up different colors of bananas and other items. However, not all 3D platformers were like this, most notably Crash Bandicoot. It remained true to the 2D tradition by using fairly linear levels, each with a goal at the end.
Is their any justification for this?  I thought it was fine.  Anyone else have any thoughts? Kertrats | Talk 13:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's fine, put it back. Andre (talk) 20:05, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Paragraph 

message: In the Chronology list, Ratchet & Clank is mentioned as the first to combine platforming with third-person shooting. O RLY? Conker's Bad Fur Day had that way before R&C.--Boredalot 22:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conker VS Ratchet 

message: From the article: American McGee's Alice (Rogue Entertainment, 2000) - The first major "dark", M-rated platformer. 
Shadow Man came out the previous year and I think would qualify as a platformer. Ace of Sevens 06:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alice is first mature platformer? 

message: Whilst I won't argue with including the Monty Mole saga in a list of significant platform games, it might be better to use the first MM game Wanted: Monty Mole rather than Monty On The Run unless there's a reason that this one should feature ahead of it. Does anyone disagree? - Zagrebo 18:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Monty On The Run

message: This article seems to overlook the isometric 3d platform games that were extremely popular in the 1980s, for example 3D Ant Attack and the various Ultimate Play the Game hits such as Knight Lore. Is there a general consensus that these do not count as platform games for some reason? - ThomasHarte 21:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Strictly-speaking, Ant Attack is an isometric action game and Knight Lore is an isometric arcade adventure. Both have some very simple platforming elements (ie you jump on top of things) but that is not the genre they should be categorised in. - Zagrebo 14:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why no Isometric Games? 

message: I think the list of significant platform games has been embellished a little and is no longer objective. In particular:
* Technician Ted - wasn't this just another Jet Set Willy clone?
* Gex: Enter the Gecko - the game was poorly received and barely sold
* Banjo-Kazooie - why is this significant at all? Memorability isn't significance, and this is just yet another of Rare's N64 platform game cycle
* Prince of Persia 3D - this appears to be cited as significant for being insignificant?
* Conker's Bad Fur Day - obviously not one of the first platformers to combine third person shooting - Tomb Raider did that five years earlier - and not one of the first "adult-aimed" platformers given the mature nature of Prince of Persia, Flashback, etc. If anything I'd call it deliberately juvenile
* Sly Cooper and the Thievius Raccoonus - "The first platform game to use cel-shaded graphics", why don't we also have "the first platform game with 32 pixel high sprites" or "the first platform game with Gouraud shading"?
* Ratchet & Clank: Up Your Arsenal - surely good review scores aren't enough to be called significant?
* Doukutsu Monogatari - since when does repeating genuinely significant work and giving it away for free make that work significant?
* Psychonauts - why is this significant?
Perhaps the best thing would be to make the criteria for inclusion more obvious? I think that a "significant" platform game must be either highly influential or ubiquitous. What do others think? - ThomasHarte 11:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted the first five that you mentioned, as well as Ratchet & Clank. However, I think the other ones are significant (except Psychonauts, which I know nothing about, but I imagine it must be signficant in some way). Regarding Doukutsu, I think it's signficant in being freeware. As far as Sly Cooper, perhaps we should figure out the first platform games with different forms of graphics, as you say. That would require adding to the list, not deleting items from it. Andre (talk) 19:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Technician Ted - wasn't this just another Jet Set Willy clone?
Not really. There was an innovative (arguably arcade-adventure) element to it involving Ted having to do tasks (represented by hitting two boxes) in a certain order that added something new to the platforming genre at the time. It made the game quite complicated, though (for me, anyway) and I think that is why few (if any) platform games followed in its footsteps - most in fact preferred to be bona-fide Jet Set Willy copyists of the "explore the rooms and collect all the objects" variety -- Zagrebo 14:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [Non-]significant platform games 

message: I've had a look at the article but the main issue I can see is a lack of citations in parts. Have a look at the list an I'll try adding some fact tags. There shouldn't be a mass of them but it'll need a few
*It is well written?
(a) the prose is excellent fantastically written article, the grammar is correct, and the structure is clear at first reading.
 
(b) the structure is logical, introducing the topic and then grouping together its coverage of related aspects;  where appropriate, it contains a succinct lead section summarising the topic, and the remaining text is organised into a system of hierarchical sections (particularly for longer articles); 
(c) It generally complies with the Wikipedia Manual of style; specifically, it follows the Article lead guideline (unless it is too short to have a lead), Article layout guideline, Jargon guideline, Words to avoid using guideline, How to write about Fiction guideline, and List incorporation.
(d) necessary technical terms or jargon are briefly explained in the article itself, or an active link is provided. 
*It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect:
(a) it provides references to any and all sources used for its material; 
(b) the citation of its sources is essential, and while the use of inline citations are not mandatory, they are highly desirable, in particular for longer articles. Unambiguous citations of reliable sources are necessary for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged 
(c) sources should be selected in accordance with the guidelines for reliable sources; 
(d) it contains no elements of original research.
*It is broad in its coverage. In this respect :
(a) it addresses all major aspects of the topic; 
(b) it stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary details (no non-notable trivia).
It follows the neutral point of view policy. In this respect:
(a) viewpoints are represented fairly and without bias; 
(b) all significant points of view are fairly presented, but not asserted, particularly where there are or have been conflicting views on the topic. 
* It is stable, i.e. it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars. This does not apply to vandalism and protection or semi-protection as a result of vandalism, or proposals to split/merge the article content. 
*It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. In this respect:
(a) the images are tagged and have succinct and descriptive captions;
(b) a lack of images does not in itself prevent an article from achieving Good Article status. 
(c) any non-free images have a fair use rationale NES Super Mario Bros.png, Alpha_waves.gif, Bug for sega saturn.png, N64 Super Mario 64 shifting sand land.jpg, TheLostVikings.png, Contra (arcade game).png, Another World 1.PNG, Dodokodon ingame.png and Knight lore 4.gif has no fair use rationale
I know the fair use bit looks a lot but that and the cites are the main prolbems. The OR is mainly for me as I need to check a few points before I sign them off but I'm pretty sure they'll be alright.
It's fantastically written and should this pass GA I'd consider nominating for FA straight away but the cites and pics need sorting firs. Drop me a line on my talk page if you want. BigHairRef | Talk 13:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the praise. I can take some original screenshots of those games for fair use purposes. A few of the things marked original research are simply intuitive statements (like, for example, it's obvious that a genre is not defined at its onset; logically it cannot be), but I'll try to bolster some of the other things with a few more refs.Frogacuda 17:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: No problem. I took new screens for all images that I didn't add personally and added fair use rationales, so that should be fine now. I added some more refs. I have a few more to take care of, but I'll do it tomorrow.Frogacuda 04:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The first sentence is the same as saying "They had a savior in Jesus." It's a perfectly normal way of saying that thought. Like, if I say "You have a friend in me," it doesn't mean that I have consumed a companion of yours and he literally dwells within me. I'm a professional writer and copy editor, and there's nothing wrong with that sentence. Also, you say there's no flow, and yet, it follows the series game by game completely logically, and leads into the way that the CAG sub-genre emerged. Donkey Kong 3 is mentioned only to explain how the evolution leads directly from Jr into Mario Bros. Parenthetical statements do, generally, fall in mid-sentence, also. You're just wrong on this one. Frogacuda 16:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:a (fair representation):  b (all significant views): 
#It is stable.
#:
#It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
#:a (tagged and captioned):  b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales): 
#Overall: 
#:a Pass/Fail: 
Minor point remaining is the tag in the Platformers into the present section leading to the '?' for 2c. I'd advise binning it personally it's a bit weasally. Only remaining real issue is the lack of a definition for a proto platformer. All we're told is that they came before platformers and not what features they lack that platform, a link to a wiki article would do although a citation would be musch better along with a brief description. I'd advise binning it personally it's a bit weasally. Otherwise all issues sorted. I'm impressed with the amount of work that's gone in tbh after the number of cites that were needed. The only real improvement I would suggest would be a slightly larger lead image, a slightly more dispassionate (NPOV) summaries for the pics and add something like for illustrational purposes only to the fair use images. If that were done I'd seriously suggest nominating for FA. I'll take a look back soon! BigHairRef | Talk 17:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Proto-platformer" wasn't intended as a proper term for a genre, it's just the term I used for very early ancestors of platformers that don't really fall into any other categories (it's short for prototypical platformer, obviously). To be honest, I coined the term myself assuming that its meaning would be easily and intuitively understood. Is it really a problem?Frogacuda 23:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Nomination