Talk:SWAT 3: Close Quarters Battle

message: We could do with a section on SWAT3's multiplayer mode, as well as some good screenshots. I'll try to get the shots, but I don't do multiplayer really, and wouldn't know where to start with that. CaptainVindaloo 00:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do so.--24.240.186.152 (talk) 19:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't alter other people's posts. CaptainVindaloo t c e 20:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Multiplayer section and screenshots

message: Just wanted to say that it's a shame this game is set in '05, as it seems too make the game seem more dated. If it was further in the future or if the year wasn't mentioned at all, it would be timeless. Amazing game, nevertheless.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.92.168.163 (talk) 22:12, August 24, 2007 (UTC) 
:True, true. Hmm, I'm going to have to try and get it to run on Vista sometime, which should be fun. CaptainVindaloo t c e 19:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: It's a shame, really

message: I've made several small changes that seemed reasonable to me, but at least one of them was incorrect (C2/C4). I specifically changed the M1 Super 90 to Benelli M4 Super 90, because it gave a proper link, but that may have been another mistake. Please revert and correct as necessary if any changes turn out to be nonsense. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 19:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks like the right one. Must be using a different version in the game, thats all. Maybe the 'Mx' indicates the version. CaptainVindaloo t c e 21:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An article on the M1 exists (I've only just found it). The game's version looks more like the M4, but I'm hardly an expert in firearms. :-/ Nevertheless, i've changed the link to the M1, because that's what the game calls it. According to the M4 article, it was designed in '98 and entered service in '99 with the US Marines only, so the game (or at least the incorporation of its weapons) may actually predate the M4. CaptainVindaloo t c e 22:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup and changes

message: And I quote:
Fancy kicking down a few doors? Breaking and entering was never so fun. You control a SWAT officer who along with four other rozzers, must protect the city from all sorts of nasties. Performance in one mission determines what your next one will be. Your first few involve restraining angry civilians, but do well and terrorist organisations start cropping up. All the best ideas from other squad based games, shoehorned into a police setting, perfectly. 91% 
:::::-PC Gamer UK, issue 78.
CaptainVindaloo t c e 21:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've entered the review as the second paragraph (after editing it for length). The placement may not be right, and my formatting is atrocious. I tried to make an inline cite out of it, but couldn't find the quote on a website. Did this appear only in the paper magazine, or is it on the web someplace I haven't looked yet? --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 17:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its paper only. The comment, or something similar would have appeared in issue 78 and a few later issues. I don't have the issue in question (I only started buying PCG at around issue 96 or so), but I do have a book of PC Gamer reviews, 'The Ultimate guide to PC games', ISBN 9771478459034, which has a copy of the comment. If memory serves (the book was published in July 2003), the book was covermounted on that month's issue, so you won't find any official resellers. You might find a second copy on Ebay, or wherever else. (Google) . Then again, the original issue might still be around. CaptainVindaloo t c e 18:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I moved the review into a new reviews section, there will be more out there, I'm certain. I added the inline cite for the book while I was at it. Maybe a Gamespot review? It will be much easier to cite, although I keep hearing criticism of using online reviews. CaptainVindaloo t c e 18:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks MUCH better :) I understand concerns about "online reviews", but I suspect that one magazine and one website would be a reasonable balance. I considered adding a review section, and I'm glad you went ahead and did it...would it be reasonable to now quote the entire review? I only trimmed it for length because of the original placement. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 18:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, there should be space now. CaptainVindaloo t c e 19:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Ooh, by the way, in the review, the score does not appear exactly as I transcribed, I only put it there because I couldn't think of a better place. I altered that in the article. CaptainVindaloo t c e 21:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (Gah! Edit conflict!) Found the Gamespot review, here, although its stuck on the UK version I suppose it will be the same. Only trouble is, their review section is as confusing as , so I don't know which score to put in; the Gamespot score, the user vote score, the user reviewer score or the avarage of the three. CaptainVindaloo t c e 22:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[PC Gamer]] UK - review

message: I think know PNG format images can be more easily scaled than JPG images. I noticed this earlier, whilst messing about with the images on RuneScape monsters. I've still got the originals in Bitmap, so I'll reupload them as PNG. Then we can have more reasonably sized images in the article, rather than ugly thumbnails. I really ought to stop bothering with JPGs, more trouble than they are worth. Is it possible to speedy delete unused/reformatted images? CaptainVindaloo t c e 21:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the idea of replacing the images, but I'm clueless about deleting the old ones. I'm still struggling with the upload process :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 21:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm guessing that simply uploading PNGs into a JPG location would screw up everything in an interesting fashion. I'll ask at the Village Pump. CaptainVindaloo t c e 22:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, fixed it now, with considerable help from the guys at the Village Pump. I was actually just arranging the parameters in the image code incorrectly. And confusing PNG with SVG. Graphics is not my area of expertise, I think I'll stick to programming and building PCs. CaptainVindaloo t c e 15:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image Scaling

message: I'm going to revert this to its original version. I'm not happy with the new one I uploaded. I may add a new, better version in future. CaptainVindaloo t c e 14:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:Swat 3 0004.jpg]] 

message: I installed SWAT a long time ago on my computer, then I de-installed it. And in the meantime, I lost the CD case, with all the loading info on it. So when I attempted to re-install it, the game wanted the code on the front of the case (which I didn't have). Can anyone help me out here? Is there anyway that I can get that information? Can I borrow someone elses code. Malomaboy06 (talk) 23:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can anyone help me out 

message: The internet servers went down, but some of us still play using lan. It's hard to find people and the community is very small, so we figured we could at least mention it here. I know there aren't any sources at the moment but we're working on it. Before anyone takes it down, please state your dispute with this first.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.208.163 (talk) 05:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mulitplayer Section 

message: Unfortunately this article is remaining at Start class.  Though there is a lot of content, there are several issues:
*There are four  tags throughout the article that haven't been resolved.  
*There are three non-free images, but the third does nothing to help the reader understand the game.  This violates WP:NFCC, which basically states to use as little as possible.  The other two images should be separated and one should be left justify. 
*There are only nine references for a huge article.  Seven of them are in the Reception section
*The lead has far too much information.  Some of this can be moved in a Development section, which is missing entirely
*The Multiplayer section should be a sub-section of Gameplay
*There are several two-line paragraphs.  These should be combined where possible to eliminate some white space
*The Missions section should be restructured as the Plot section, and it should be below 700 words.  Currently it's at about 940.
*The entire body of the article except for the Reception section (and the lead, which is not part of the body) is completely unreferenced.
*The Release section can be combined with the to-be Development section to create a "Development and release" section.  The bulleted points should also be converted to prose.
*Benelli leads to a disambiguation link. 
I would recommend addressing the issues above, then looking for reliable sources in THIS Wikiproject Video Games reliable sources search.  After that a trip to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review can help the article get cleaned up and ready for reassessment.  Don't be discouraged - this article has a lot of potential.  It's just time to get the sourcing and policy caught up with the content. --Teancum (talk) 18:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikiproject video games assessment